IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION

Additional Actions 

Could Strengthen DHS 

Efforts to Address 

Sexual Abuse

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2013

GAO-14-38

This report was revised on December 6, 2013, to correct a date on the 

Highlights page and text regarding substantiated allegations on page 61.

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-38, a report to 

congressional requesters

November 2013

IMMIGRATION DETENTION

Additional Actions Could Strengthen DHS Efforts to 

Address Sexual Abuse

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2003 Congress passed the Prison 

Rape Elimination Act (PREA) to protect 

individuals against sexual abuse and 

assault in confinement settings, 

including persons potentially subject to 

removal from the United States housed 

in DHS’s detention facilities. GAO was

asked to review DHS efforts to address 

issues of sexual abuse and assault in 

immigration detention facilities. This 

report examines (1) what DHS data 

show about sexual abuse and assault 

in immigration detention facilities, and 

how these data are used for detention 

management; (2) the extent to which

DHS has included provisions for 

addressing sexual abuse and assault 

in its detention standards; and (3) the 

extent to which DHS has assessed

compliance with these provisions and 

the results. 

GAO reviewed documentation for 215 

sexual abuse and assault allegations 

reported to ICE headquarters from 

October 2009 through March 2013; 

analyzed detention standards and 

inspection reports; and visited 10 

detention facilities selected based on

detainee population, among other 

things. The visit results cannot be 

generalized, but provided insight.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS (1) 

develop additional controls to ensure 

all allegations are reported to 

headquarters, (2) coordinate OIG 

access to hotline connectivity data, (3) 

document and maintain reliable

information on detention standards,

and (4) develop a process for 

performing oversight of SAAPI 

provisions consistently across facilities.

DHS concurred and reported actions to 

address the recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) sexual abuse and assault allegations data are not complete, a 

fact that could limit their usefulness for detention management. ICE’s data

system described 215 allegations of sexual abuse and assault from October 

2009 through March 2013 in facilities that had over 1.2 million admissions;

however, ICE data did not include all reported allegations. For example, GAO 

was unable to locate an additional 28 allegations detainees reported to the 10

facilities GAO visited—or 40 percent of 70 total allegations at these 10 facilities—

because ICE field office officials did not report them to ICE headquarters. ICE 

issued guidance on reporting sexual abuse and assault allegations, but has not 

developed controls to ensure that field office officials responsible for overseeing 

all facilities are reporting allegations to ICE headquarters. Detainees may also 

face barriers to reporting abuse, such as difficulty reaching the DHS Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) telephone hotline, one of various means for reporting 

abuse. For example, GAO’s review of data maintained by ICE’s phone services 

contractor for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 showed that approximately 14 

percent of calls placed to the hotline from about 210 facilities did not go through 

because, for example, the call was not answered. OIG officials were not aware

that the OIG could monitor hotline connectivity through these data. Developing 

additional controls to better ensure reporting of allegations and coordinating with 

the OIG to better ensure OIG access to hotline connectivity data in accordance 

with federal internal control standards could better position ICE to assess its 

sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention (SAAPI) efforts. 

DHS included various SAAPI provisions in three of four sets of detention 

standards it uses at detention facilities, but does not have reliable and consistent

information to determine which provisions apply to which individual facilities. For 

example, GAO’s review of a nonprobability sample of 20 facility contracts and 

agreements showed inconsistencies in ICE’s data on which detention standards 

should be in place for almost half of the facilities. Documenting and maintaining 

reliable information about which detention standards apply to which facilities in 

accordance with federal internal control standards could better ensure that ICE 

officials, facility administrators, and other stakeholders have a reliable and 

consistent understanding of facility requirements and position ICE to plan for 

SAAPI program operations. 

DHS focused its sexual abuse and assault oversight on 157 of approximately 250

facilities that housed about 90 percent of detainees and found most facilities 

compliant with SAAPI provisions from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. ICE used 

various oversight mechanisms, such as inspections, onsite supervision, and 

facility self-assessments, and identified SAAPI-related deficiencies. However, 

facility inspection reports did not consistently assess all SAAPI provisions

expected by inspection protocols. For example, during 27 percent of inspections 

performed during this time period inspectors did not assess whether facilities met 

the provision to have sexual abuse statistics and reports readily available for 

review. Developing a process for ensuring consistency across and completeness 

in how SAAPI inspections are performed in accordance with federal internal 

control standards could help ensure that ICE management has complete 

information about SAAPI compliance across all detention facilities.

View GAO-14-38. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777

or gamblerr@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Letter 1

Background 7

ICE Sexual Abuse and Assault Allegations Data Are Not Complete, 

Which Could Limit Their Usefulness for Detention Management 14

Sexual Abuse and Assault Provisions in Detention Standards Vary 

in Content and Applicability across Facilities 27

DHS Focused Its Sexual Abuse and Assault Oversight on Facilities 

Housing Most Detainees and Found Most Facilities Compliant 

with Provisions 36

Conclusions 47

Recommendations for Executive Action 48

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 48

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 53

Appendix II Summary of Substantiated Sexual Abuse and Assault 

Allegations, October 2009 through March 2013 60

Appendix III Process for Reporting and Investigating Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Allegations 63

Appendix IV Provisions for Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 

Intervention Included in Immigration Detention Standards 66

Appendix V NPREC Recommendations Compared with DHS Detention 

Standards and PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 69

Appendix VI DHS PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Compared with

DOJ PREA Rule 76

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Appendix VII Enforcement and Removal Operations 2008 and 2011 Sexual 

Abuse and Assault Provisions Inspection Checklists 77

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 81

Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 86

Tables

Table 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Facility Types and Characteristics 10

Table 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Standards 12

Table 3: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sexual Abuse 

and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Roles 

and Responsibilities in Detention Facilities 13

Table 4: Characteristics of the 215 Closed Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Allegations at Immigration Detention Facilities 

Included in the Joint Integrity Case Management System, 

October 2009-March 2013, by Percentage 16

Table 5: Results of Closed Investigations into Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Allegations Included in the Joint Integrity Case 

Management System, October 2009-March 2013 17

Table 6: GAO Analysis of Reasons Why 119 Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Allegations Reported in the Joint Integrity Case 

Management System Were Determined to Be 

Unsubstantiated, October 2009-March 2013 18

Table 7: Examples of Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 

Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions in U.S Immigration 

Customs and Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards for 

Adult Facilities 28

Table 8: Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention 

(SAAPI) Provisions Applicable to Immigration Detention 

Facilities, as of August 2013 30

Table 9: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Inspection 

Results of the 2008 Performance-Based National Detention 

Standards Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 
Page iii GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions, Fiscal Years 2010 

through 2013 39

Table 10: Substantiated Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Assault in 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Facilities, October 2009 through March 2013 60

Table 11: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 

Intervention (SAAPI) in U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards 66

Table 12: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) 

Recommended Standards for Immigration Detention 

Facilities Compared with Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) 2011 Performance-Based National 

Detention Standards (PBNDS) and DHS Prison Rape 

Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) 70

Table 13: Selected Differences between Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

for Implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 

(PREA) Rule and Department of Justice (DOJ) Final PREA 

Rule 76

Table 14: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) 2008 and 

2011 Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 

Intervention (SAAPI) Inspection Checklists 77

Figures

Figure 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Facility Locations, as of August 2013 11

Figure 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Oversight Mechanisms That Included Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Oversight by Detention Facilities and Average 

Daily Detainee Population, Fiscal Year 2012 38

Figure 3: Process for Reporting and Investigating Sexual Abuse

Allegations in Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) Detention Facilities 64
Page iv GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOJ Department of Justice

DSM detention service manager

ERO Enforcement and Removal Operations 

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

JICMS Joint Integrity Case Management System

NDS National Detention Standards

NPREC National Prison Rape Elimination Commission

OAQ Office of Acquisition Management

ODO Office of Detention Oversight

ODPP Office of Detention Policy and Planning

OIG Office of Inspector General

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility

PBNDS Performance-Based National Detention Standards

PREA Prison Rape Elimination Act

SAAPI sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention

SAFE sexual assault forensic examiner

SANE sexual assault nurse examiner

USAO U.S. Attorney’s Office

USMS U.S. Marshals Service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 20, 2013

Congressional Requesters

Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) to 

protect individuals against sexual abuse and assault in confinement 

settings, including persons confined in U.S. immigration detention 

facilities.1 From fiscal years 2010 through 2012, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) admitted persons potentially subject to removal 

from the United States for violations of immigration law into its 

approximately 250 immigration detention facilities, which had more than 

1.2 million admissions. The National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission, which PREA established to study the impacts of prison rape 

in the United States, reported that persons in immigration detention 

facilities are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and its effects because 

of social, cultural, and language isolation; poor understanding of U.S. 

culture and the subculture of U.S. prisons; and the often traumatic 

experiences they have endured in their cultures of origin. Furthermore, 

the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission reported that 

immigration detainees may be especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and 

assault by staff because detainees are confined by the same agency that 

has the power to deport them, and fearing the possibility of retaliatory 

deportation, tend to be less likely than other prisoners to challenge the 

conditions of their confinement.2

 1

Pub. L. No. 108-79, 117 Stat. 972 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 15601-15609). PREA 

requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Department of Justice to collect and 

disseminate information on the incidence of prison rape. 42 U.S.C. § 15603. As part of its 

PREA-related responsibilities, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in May 2013 that 

during 2011 and 2012, an estimated 4 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 3.2 

percent of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization 

within the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if detention had been less than 

12 months. The Bureau of Justice Statistics also collected allegations of sexual abuse 

reported by detainees in 5 immigration detention facilities that collectively housed about 

13 percent of the immigration detention population during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 and 

found that the percentage of detainees reporting having experienced sexual abuse across 

the facilities ranged from 0.8 to 3.8 percent; however, these data for detainees are not 

generalizable to all ICE detention facilities. See Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported 

by Inmates, 2011-12, NCJ 241399 (Washington, D.C.: May 2013).

2

See National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Report, June 2009. 
Page 2 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible 

for overseeing the nation’s largest civil detention system. Within ICE, the 

Office of Acquisition Management (OAQ) negotiates contracts and 

agreements with facilities to house detainees that incorporate various 

immigration detention standards for conditions of confinement. The Office 

of Detention Policy and Planning (ODPP) is responsible for detention 

system design and evaluation, and the Enforcement and Removal 

Operations (ERO) oversees the confinement of ICE detainees across 

facilities in accordance with immigration detention standards. In addition, 

the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) tracks and investigates 

sexual abuse and assault allegations in immigration detention facilities.

You asked us to review DHS’s efforts to address issues of sexual abuse 

and assault in immigration detention facilities. This report addresses the 

following questions: (1) What do DHS data show about sexual abuse and 

assault in immigration detention facilities, and how are these data used 

for detention management? (2) To what extent has DHS included 

provisions for addressing sexual abuse and assault in its immigration 

detention standards? (3) To what extent has DHS assessed facility 

administrator compliance with these provisions and what were the results 

of DHS’s assessments?

To address these questions, we assessed DHS’s efforts to address 

sexual abuse and assault in immigration detention facilities that house 

ICE detainees.3

 3

DHS defines an immigration detention facility as a confinement facility operated by or 

affiliated with ICE that routinely holds persons for over 24 hours pending resolution or 

completion of immigration removal operations or processes. We did not include other 

types of facilities, such as holding facilities and prisons that temporarily house detainees 

waiting for ICE transfer to detention facilities. We also excluded the three federal prisons 

where ICE has detention bed space because two of these facilities house few detainees 

and the use of the third prison for detention was to be discontinued by the end of calendar 

year 2013, according to Bureau of Prisons and ICE officials. We also did not include 

facilities for juveniles that are regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services. 

In particular, we visited a nonprobability sample of 10 

detention facilities in California, Florida, Texas, and Washington. We 

selected these facilities based on a mix of factors, such as differences in 

geographical location, detainee population, facility type, detention 

standards governing the facility, length of time the facility may hold 

detainees, and recommendations made by DHS and organizations that 
Page 3 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

work with immigration detainees.4 We collected and reviewed 

investigative files for all 70 sexual abuse and assault allegations occurring 

from fiscal years 2010 through 2012 maintained at the 10 facilities we 

visited and assessed their completeness against ICE requirements and 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

5 We 

interviewed ERO field office officials, facility personnel, and detainees 

regarding sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention (SAAPI) 

policies and procedures in place at the facilities we visited.6 In advance of 

each visit, we interviewed representatives from at least one local 

immigrant advocacy organization about their views on SAAPI efforts at 

the facilities.7

To determine what DHS data show about sexual abuse and assault in 

detention facilities and how they are used for detention management, we 

reviewed closing reports summarizing the allegation and investigative 

steps and outcomes for all 215 sexual abuse and assault allegations 

reported to ICE from October 2009 through March 2013 and tracked in 

The information we obtained from our facility visits cannot 

be generalized to all facilities, guards, detainees, or advocacy 

organizations, but offers insight into the overall range of implementation 

of SAAPI policies across detention facilities.

 4

We did not use the number of sexual abuse allegations at a facility as part of our 

selection criteria because a higher number of allegations could represent either (1) an 

increased risk of abuse to detainees or (2) increased reporting at a facility. 

5

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). Of these files, we selected investigative files for a 

nonprobability sample of 15 allegations for more in-depth analysis, to include allegations 

from each facility and allegations against staff members and allegations against 

detainees. The results of our more in-depth analysis are not generalizable to all 

investigative files, but provided helpful insights into investigative file completeness.

6

In particular, we interviewed a nonprobability sample of 18 guards at 9 facilities, which we 

selected to include 1 male and 1 female at each facility. Guards at 1 facility elected not to 

speak with us at the recommendation of their union, which was concerned that information 

guards shared with us could be used by facility management to negatively assess guard 

performance. In addition, we interviewed a nonprobability sample of 53 detainees at 9 

facilities. The 10th facility did not have any detainees in its custody during our visit. We 

selected detainees based on gender, age, country of origin, and number of days in ICE 

custody.

7

We identified these local organizations through recommendations provided by two 

national advocacy organizations—the American Civil Liberties Union and the National 

Immigrant Justice Center. In instances where the national organizations suggested that 

we speak with more than one local organization, we invited representatives from all of the 

local organizations to meet with us.
Page 4 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

OPR’s Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS)—the primary 

system ICE uses to track sexual abuse and assault allegations.8 We also 

met with agency officials from ICE offices and other DHS components 

responsible for collecting and using data on sexual abuse and assault in 

detention facilities including the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), 

which investigates misconduct involving DHS and contractor employees 

and operates a hotline through which detainees can report complaints 

regarding misconduct in detention facilities, including sexual abuse and 

assault, and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which is 

responsible for identifying policy gaps that can contribute to sexual abuse. 

To assess the reliability of the JICMS data, we compared the allegations 

contained in JICMS, which according to ICE is to include all reported 

sexual abuse and assault allegations, with other information sources 

including allegations documented by the 10 facilities we visited. Further, 

we interviewed knowledgeable OPR officials about the completeness and 

reliability of JICMS data and controls in place for these data. We used this 

information to assess ICE controls for maintaining JICMS data against 

ICE requirements and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government.

9 We determined that the data within JICMS were sufficiently 

reliable for the purpose of presenting the type and outcome of sexual 

abuse and assault allegations, but we found limitations with the 

information about the number of reported sexual abuse allegations in 

JICMS, which we discuss later in this report. We also conducted limited 

testing of mechanisms available to detainees for reporting sexual abuse 

at each of the facilities we visited by placing calls to ICE hotlines from 

selected telephones within detainee housing, among other things, and 

assessed these mechanisms against ICE detention standards 

requirements and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government.

10

 8

We selected October 2009 because, according to ICE officials, data prior to fiscal year 

2010 do not include sexual abuse and assault allegations against detainees. According to 

ICE OPR, it did not collect this information in JICMS prior to fiscal year 2010 because the 

office was focused on employee and contractor misconduct rather than detainee 

misconduct. We selected March 2013 because OPR had completed most investigations 

into allegations made through then at the time of our review.

In addition, we collected and analyzed telephone 

connectivity data from ERO to determine the extent to which detainee 

calls placed to the OIG hotline from fiscal years 2010 through 2012 using 

9

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

10GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
Page 5 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

ICE’s telephone contractor or its pro bono telephone platform were 

successfully connected.11 We assessed the reliability of these data by 

interviewing ERO officials and contractor personnel familiar with the 

processes used to collect, record, and analyze the data, and determined 

that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. 

Finally, we assessed the completeness of documentation in a 

nonprobability sample of 15 sexual abuse and assault allegation files 

maintained at the 10 facilities we visited against ICE requirements and 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

12

To determine the extent to which DHS detention standards include SAAPI 

provisions, we reviewed relevant ICE SAAPI standards and policies 

currently applicable to, or proposed for, ICE detention facilities. In 

particular, to establish the relative protections these standards afford 

detainees, we analyzed and compared ICE’s four sets of detention 

standards and DHS’s December 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking for 

implementing PREA—Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to 

Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities. In addition, we 

compared DHS’s most recent set of detention standards—the 2011 

Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS)—and notice 

of proposed rulemaking with National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission recommendations for immigration detention facilities and 

also compared DHS’s notice of proposed rulemaking and the Department 

of Justice’s (DOJ) PREA rule. To determine which sexual abuse and 

assault standards ICE requires facilities to implement, we collected fiscal 

year 2013 detention standards data from ERO and OAQ and compared 

the maintenance of this data against Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government.

13

 11ERO officials explained that ICE contracts with one telephone company to provide full 

telephone service for detainees at 18 of its 251 detention facilities. In addition, 191 

facilities use this telephone company’s nationwide pro bono platform, which enables 

detainees to place calls at no charge to certain numbers, including the OIG hotline. 

We assessed the reliability of the ERO and OAQ 

detention standards data by reviewing the contracts on which the data 

were based for a nonprobability sample of 20 facilities, and interviewing 

12GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

13GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 6 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

ERO and OAQ officials about any discrepancies in the data.14

To determine the extent to which DHS has assessed facility compliance 

with SAAPI provisions, as well as the results of these assessments, we 

analyzed and compared various oversight mechanisms, such as 

inspections, utilized at ICE’s detention facilities. Specifically, we 

interviewed ICE officials responsible for facility oversight; ERO officials 

responsible for reviewing results from facility self-assessments; 

representatives from the ERO contractor responsible for conducting 

facility inspections; and DOJ officials responsible for assessing 

compliance with DOJ standards at facilities with which DOJ has 

agreements that house ICE detainees. We also reviewed the results of 

the 110 ERO and 30 Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) facility 

inspection reports that assessed compliance with SAAPI standards during 

fiscal years 2010 through 2013 to assess the extent to which inspectors 

found deficiencies in the SAAPI standards, associated corrective actions, 

and any patterns across reports.

We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 

presenting trends in the standards to which different types of facilities are 

to adhere, but we found limitations with the data on the number of 

facilities that are obligated by their contracts or agreement with ICE to 

adhere to particular sets of detention standards, which we discuss later in 

the report.

15 We assessed the consistency with 

which the SAAPI inspections were performed in accordance with 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

16

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through

November 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

Additional 

details on our scope and methodology are contained in appendix I.

 14We selected this sample to include (1) facilities at which we conducted site visits and (2) 

facilities for which ERO and OAQ information on facility standards differed. While not 

generalizable, this sample provided us with helpful insights into the reliability of ERO and 

OAQ’s information on facility standards. 

15We chose this time frame because prior to fiscal year 2010, the scope of ICE’s 

inspections of the SAAPI standard was limited to 2 of its 251 facilities. In addition, our 

analysis included inspection reports available as of August 2013. At that time, all but 2 

ERO and 3 Office of Detention Oversight inspections reports scheduled for fiscal year 

2013 were available for our review.

16GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
Page 7 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

PREA was enacted to, among other things, establish a zero-tolerance 

standard for rape in U.S. prisons and make the prevention of prison rape 

a top priority in each prison system.17 PREA also charged the National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission with recommending standards for 

addressing prison rape for consideration by the Attorney General and 

directed the Attorney General to adopt national standards for the 

detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape.18 In June 

2009, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission issued a report 

with recommended standards, including specific recommendations for 

facilities that house immigration detainees, and in May 2012, DOJ 

released a final rule for publication in the Federal Register adopting 

national standards for the detection and prevention of, and response to,

prison rape.19 When DOJ published its final rule, DOJ also announced its 

conclusion that PREA encompasses all federal confinement facilities, and 

noted that other federal departments with confinement facilities (including 

but not limited to DHS) would work with the Attorney General to issue 

rules or procedures that would satisfy the requirements of PREA.20

 1742 U.S.C. § 15602(1)-(2).

In 

May 2012, the President also issued a memorandum directing all 

agencies with federal confinement facilities not already subject to DOJ’s 

final rule to work with the Attorney General to propose, within 120 days of 

May 17, 2012, any rule or procedure necessary to satisfy the 

requirements of PREA and to finalize any such rules or procedures within 

1842 U.S.C. §§ 15606(e)(1), 15607(a).

19See National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Report, June, 2009, and National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and 

Respond to Prison Rape, 77 Fed. Reg. 37,106 (June 20, 2012) (to be codified at 28 

C.F.R. pt. 115).

2077 Fed. Reg. at 37,112-13.

Background

Legislation and 

Regulations Pertaining

to Sexual Abuse and 

Assault in Confinement
Page 8 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

240 days of their proposals.21 On December 6, 2012, DHS released a 

notice of proposed rulemaking for publication in the Federal Register for 

adopting its own national standards for the detection and prevention of, 

and response to, sexual abuse and assault in confinement facilities.22

According to DHS officials, the department did not have a planned date 

for releasing its final PREA rule, but anticipated doing so in fall 2013.23

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides ICE with broad authority to 

detain aliens believed to be removable while awaiting a determination of 

whether they should be removed from the United States and mandates 

that ICE detain certain categories of aliens.24 Aliens subject to mandatory 

detention include those arriving in the United States without 

documentation or with fraudulent documentation, those who are 

inadmissible or deportable on criminal or national security grounds, those 

certified as terrorist suspects, and those who have final orders of removal. 

Unlike criminal incarceration, immigration detention is not to be punitive; 

rather, ICE is to confine detainees for the administrative purpose of 

holding, processing, and preparing them for removal. According to ICE

data, during 2012, the agency detained about 32,000 detainees in its 

detention facilities each day and held detainees for an average of about 

28 days.25 ICE detainees include a mix of men and women from a wide 

variety of countries and with criminal and noncriminal backgrounds.26

 21White House, Presidential Memorandum—Implementing the Prison Rape Elimination 

Act (Washington, D.C.: May 2012).

For 

example, ICE’s fiscal year 2012 detainee population was about 91 

22Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in 

Confinement Facilities, 77 Fed. Reg. 75,300 (Dec. 19, 2012).

23DHS officials also stated that the department provided its final PREA rule to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review in September 2013.

248 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231.

25These data are approximations for ICE detention facilities and do not include other types 

of facilities, such as holding facilities.

26ICE generally does not detain children, with the exception of children that the agency 

detains with their families at one family residential facility. ICE must transfer 

unaccompanied alien children less than 18 years of age who are unlawfully in the United 

States without a parent or other legal guardian to the Department of Health and Human 

Services Office of Refugee Resettlement’s custody within 72 hours of determining that 

they are unaccompanied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3).

Detainee Population

and Detention Facility 

Structure
Page 9 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

percent male and 9 percent female and came from almost 200 countries. 

When detention facilities admit aliens, they are to use a classification 

system through which they separate detainees by threat risk and special 

vulnerabilities by assigning them a custody level of low, medium, or high. 

From fiscal years 2010 through 2012, about 39 percent of ICE detainees 

were of a low custody level, 41 percent were of a medium custody level, 

and 20 percent were of a high custody level.27

ICE’s ERO oversees the confinement of ICE detainees in approximately 

250 detention facilities that it manages in conjunction with private 

contractors or under agreements with state and local governments.28

Over 90 percent of facilities are operated under agreements with state 

and local governments and house about half of ICE detainees together 

with or separately from other confined populations. The remaining 

facilities house exclusively ICE detainees and are operated by a mixture 

of private contractors and ICE, state, and local government employees. 

Table 1 presents information about the number and types of facilities that 

ICE uses to house detainees, the entities that own and operate them, and 

the percentage of the detainee population confined in each facility type.

 27ICE’s custody classification system considers various factors including the detainee’s 

most recent charge or conviction, the most serious conviction in the individual’s criminal 

history, any other prior felony convictions, any attempts to escape from custody, if the 

individual has a history of assaultive behavior, and the individual’s behavioral history.

28In addition to detention facilities, ICE also has 127 holding facilities, which are used by 

ICE, U.S Customs and Border Protection, and other DHS component agencies for 

temporary administrative detention of individuals for less than 24 hours pending transfer to 

a court, jail, prison, other agency, or other unit of the facility or agency. 
Page 10 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Table 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Facility Types and Characteristics

Facility type Description

Number of 

facilitiesa Detainee populationb

Service 

processing center 

Facilities owned by ICE, operated by a mix of ICE employees and 

contractor staff, that exclusively house ICE detainees.

6 12%

Contract 

detention facility 

Facilities owned and operated by private companies under direct 

ICE contracts that exclusively house ICE detainees.

7 19%

Dedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement 

Facilities owned by state and local governments or private entities, 

operated under agreements with state and local governments, that 

exclusively house ICE detainees.

9 22% c

Family residential Facility owned and operated by a local government entity that 

houses children and their families and exclusively houses ICE 

detainees.

1 <1%

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

Facilities owned by state and local governments or private entities, 

operated under agreement by state and local governments, that 

house ICE detainees in addition to other confined populations (e.g., 

inmates), either together or separately.

103 34%

U.S. Marshals 

Service (USMS) 

intergovernmental 

agreement or contract 

Facilities owned and operated by state and local governments or 

private entities under agreement or contract with USMS within the 

Department of Justice to house federal prisoners until they are 

acquitted or convicted. ICE takes out task orders against the USMS 

intergovernmental agreements and contracts to house immigration 

detainees at these facilities, either together with or separately from 

other populations. 

125 14%

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information.

Notes: ICE authorizes facilities to house detainees for up to 72 hours or more than 72 hours. Of ICE’s 

251 facilities, 85 are authorized to house detainees for up to 72 hours. These consist of 31 

nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement facilities and 54 USMS intergovernmental 

agreement facilities. In addition to the facilities listed in this table, ICE also uses 3 facilities operated 

by the DOJ Federal Bureau of Prisons to confine detainees.

a

The number of each facility’s type presented in this table is as of August 2013.

b

Detainee population percentages are based on the average daily detainee population at facilities 

across fiscal years 2010 through 2012. Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding.

c

ICE initially used 1 of these facilities as a family residential facility, but in 2009 converted it to a 

women-only facility.

ICE’s detention facilities are located across the United States. In general, 

facilities that house the most detainees and exclusively ICE detainees are 

concentrated in the southern United States, while facilities that house 

fewer detainees are more evenly distributed across the nation. Figure 1 

presents the locations of ICE’s facilities by size and type.
Page 11 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Figure 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Facility Locations, as of August 2013

Note: Average daily population is based on ICE data for fiscal years 2010 through 2012.
Page 12 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

ICE uses four sets of national detention standards with varying 

requirements to govern the conditions of confinement in its detention 

facilities. ICE establishes the set of standards applicable to each 

detention facility through an individual contract or agreement with the 

facility. Accordingly, different facilities are governed by different 

standards. Table 2 provides information about each of these four sets of 

standards.

Table 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards

2000 National 

Detention Standards 

(NDS)

These standards are derived from the American Correctional Association’s Standards for Adult Local 

Detention Facilities, Third Edition, and were developed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 

within the Department of Justice (DOJ) in consultation with various stakeholders, including the American Bar 

Association—an association of attorneys—and organizations involved in pro bono representation and 

advocacy for immigration detainees. Following the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 

2002, DHS became responsible for immigration detention and began operating the detention system under 

the 2000 NDS. 

2007 Family 

Residential Standards

ICE approved the Family Residential Standards in 2007 to apply to its facilities that house families in 

detention. The Family Residential Standards are based on ICE analysis of family detention operations and 

state statutes that affect children. 

2008 PerformanceBased National 

Detention Standards 

(PBNDS)

ICE revised the 2000 NDS to integrate changes included in, and move to a performance-based format more in 

line with, the American Correctional Association’s Performance-Based Standards for Adult Local Detention 

Facilities, Fourth Edition. The 2008 PBNDS, which ICE developed in coordination with agency stakeholders to 

apply to adult detention populations, prescribe the expected outcomes of each detention standard and the 

expected practices required to achieve them. The 2008 PBNDS also include more detailed requirements for 

service processing centers and contract detention facilities.

2011 PBNDS ICE revised the 2008 PBNDS to improve conditions of confinement in various ways, including medical and 

mental health services, access to legal services and religious opportunities, communication with detainees 

with no or limited English proficiency, the process for reporting and responding to complaints, and recreation 

and visitation. The 2011 PBNDS also expanded the more detailed requirements for service processing centers

and contract detention facilities included in the 2008 PBNDS to dedicated intergovernmental service 

agreement facilities or, in some cases, to all facilities. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information.

Note: U.S. Marshals Service intergovernmental agreement facilities are under agreements to adhere 

to DOJ detention standards. Facilities under private contract with the U.S. Marshals Service are to 

adhere to the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards, which incorporate elements of 

American Correctional Association standards, DOJ standards, and the 2000 NDS.

Within DHS, ICE has the primary responsibility for SAAPI in immigration 

detention facilities, but other components—including the OIG and Office 

for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties—also play a role by investigating sexual 

abuse allegations. Table 3 identifies the primary DHS components 

involved in SAAPI in detention facilities and their respective roles and 

responsibilities.

Detention Standards

DHS Agencies’ Roles

and Responsibilities
Page 13 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Table 3: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Roles and 

Responsibilities in Detention Facilities

DHS components and offices Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI 

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE)a

Enforcement and Removal 

Operations (ERO)

• Identifies and apprehends removable aliens, detaining these individuals when it deems 

necessary, and removing them from the United States

Custody Management • Contracts with inspectors to conduct routine inspections of certain detention facilities to 

assess compliance with ICE detention standards, including SAAPI standards, and develops 

corrective action plans, as necessary

• Oversees the on-site Detention Monitoring Program, created in 2010, which places ICE 

detention service managers (DSM) at select facilities to monitor that conditions of 

confinement are in accordance with ICE detention standards, including SAAPI standards

• Administers the ICE Community and Detainee Helpline, which detainees may use to report 

sexual abuse and assault, among other grievances

Field Operations • Ensures that the appropriate components have been notified following an alleged sexual 

abuse or assault, and documents these notifications

• Ensures that facilities are aware of response, intervention, and investigation mandates 

established by relevant detention standards following alleged sexual abuse or assault 

through personnel located at 24 field offices

• Reviews annual self-assessments conducted by select facilities 

Office of Detention Policy 

and Planning (ODPP)

• Leads efforts to design detention standards, including SAAPI standards, and was charged 

with designing a new civil detention system 

Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR)

• Investigates select allegations of sexual abuse and assault

• Documents allegations of sexual abuse and assault in the Joint Integrity Case Management 

System, a system to log, track, and manage cases for all OPR functions including 

investigations

• Coordinates sexual abuse and assault investigations with federal, state, or local law 

enforcement or facility incident review personnel

• Houses an agency-wide Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator to develop, implement, 

and oversee ICEs SAAPI efforts 

Office of Detention 

Oversight (ODO)

• Inspects facility compliance with detention standards, including SAAPI standards, using a 

risk-based methodology

Joint Intake Center • Receives, processes, and assigns for review or investigation all misconduct allegations 

involving ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees and contractors, including 

those pertaining to sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities

ICE Health Service Corps • Provides direct detainee care in some facilities, where corps members may serve as first 

responders in instances of sexual abuse and assault, and oversees care administered by 

non-ICE Health Services Corps providers in other facilities

Office of Acquisition 

Management (OAQ)

• Negotiates and manages ICE contracts and agreements for detainee housing at detention 

facilities 

Office of Inspector General • Operates a hotline to which detainees can report sexual abuse and assault allegations

• Has investigative primacy for all sexual abuse and assault allegations against DHS or 

contractor staff members regardless of how they are reported
Page 14 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

DHS components and offices Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI 

Office for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties 

• Investigates complaints alleging violation of civil rights and civil liberties and addresses 

allegations from a policy perspective

• Consults with ICE in the development of detention standards, including SAAPI standards

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information.

a

In May 2012, ICE issued guidance—Directive 11062.1: Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 

Intervention—assigning SAAPI responsibilities to individual ICE components. This table focuses on 

the primary ICE offices and components with roles and responsibilities related to SAAPI in detention 

facilities; however, the directive also assigns SAAPI-related responsibilities to certain other offices, 

such as ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations, which may take aliens into custody through arrest.

Our analysis of ICE JICMS data showed 215 allegations of sexual abuse 

and assault in ICE detention facilities from October 2009 through March 

2013, during which time ICE data indicate that its detention facilities had 

more than 1.2 million admissions.29

 29JICMS is a system to log, track, and manage cases for all OPR functions including 

investigations, management inspections, and personnel security. Several groups within 

DHS use and access JICMS, including ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the 

Joint Intake Center, and the DHS OIG. There were an additional 9 allegations from this 

time period in JICMS for which OPR investigations remained open as of August 2013. We 

excluded these allegations from our analysis.

JICMS data describe the 

circumstances around the alleged incidents reported to OPR, and our 

analysis of these data showed that more sexual abuse and assault 

allegations were made against other detainees than against facility staff, 

and allegations against staff were most often related to actions taken 

while staff were conducting job duties. Specifically, our analysis showed 

that of the 215 allegations, 123 were allegations against fellow detainees 

ICE Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Allegations 

Data Are Not 

Complete, Which 

Could Limit Their 

Usefulness for 

Detention 

Management

ICE Data Describe the 

Type and Outcome of 

Sexual Abuse and Assault 

Allegations, but Missing 

Data Could Limit Their 

Usefulness for Managing 

Abuse Prevention and 

Intervention
Page 15 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

or inmates, 86 were allegations against staff members, and 6 did not 

specify the perpetrator.30 In general, allegations that named fellow 

detainees as the perpetrator tended to be allegations of inappropriate 

touching or penetration or attempted penetration. Allegations that named 

staff members as the perpetrator tended to be allegations of harassment 

or allegations that a staff member had sexually abused the victim during 

the course of job duties—for example, by touching a detainee 

inappropriately during a pat-down search. Table 4 describes allegations 

reported in JICMS from October 2009 through March 2013.

 30Between October 2009 and March 2013, OPR changed the definition of sexual abuse 

and assault it used to identify such allegations in JICMS. Specifically, prior to May 2012, 

OPR defined detainee-on-detainee sexual abuse or assault as one or more detainees 

engaging in, or attempting to engage in, a sexual act with another detainee or the use of 

threats, intimidation, inappropriate touching, or other actions or communications by one or 

more detainees aimed at coercing or pressuring another detainee to engage in a sexual 

act. Staff-on-detainee sexual abuse or assault was defined as a staff member engaging in, 

or attempting to engage in, a sexual act with any detainee or the intentional touching of a 

detainee’s genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, 

humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desires of any person. In addition 

staff sexual misconduct included profane or abusive language or gestures and 

inappropriate visual surveillance of detainees. In May 2012, OPR began to employ the 

sexual abuse and assault definition included in the 2011 PBNDS, which broadened 

detainee-on-detainee abuse to include attempted sexually abusive contact as well as 

intentional touching of a detainee in the same ways as previously defined by staff-ondetainee abuse when accomplished by force, coercion, or intimidation. The 2011 PBNDS 

staff-on-detainee abuse definition was broadened to also include repeated oral statements

or comments of a sexual nature to a detainee, including demeaning references to gender, 

derogatory comments about body or clothing, or profane or obscene language or 

gestures.
Page 16 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Table 4: Characteristics of the 215 Closed Sexual Abuse and Assault Allegations at Immigration Detention Facilities Included 

in the Joint Integrity Case Management System, October 2009-March 2013, by Percentage 

Allegations against 

staff members

Allegations against 

fellow detainees 

and inmates a Allegations against unspecified perpetrators

All 

allegations

Gender of alleged perpetrator

Male 52 73 17 63

Female 23 19 0 20

Not specified 24 8 83 17

Type of abuse alleged

Penetration/attempted 

penetration

13 25 17 20

Inappropriate touching 20 50 33 37

Harassment, including voyeurism 23 11 0 15

Part of staff duties 34 b Not applicable 0 13

Other or not specified 10 15 50 14

Source: GAO analysis of Joint Integrity Case Management System data.

Notes: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding.

a

This column includes 2 allegations that identified both staff and detainee perpetrators.

b

This category includes alleged abuse and assault by staff during their employment duties, such as 

inappropriately touching a detainee during a pat-down search.

Of the 215 investigations of the allegations completed between October 

2009 and March 2013, our analysis showed that 55 percent of the 

allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated (investigators could 

not determine if abuse had occurred), 38 percent unfounded 

(investigators determined that abuse had not occurred), and 7 percent—

or 15 allegations—substantiated (investigators determined that abuse had 

occurred).31

 31Investigations into these 215 allegations were conducted by local law enforcement 

agencies, OPR investigators, or DHS OIG investigators.

Substantiated allegations included both allegations against 

staff members and allegations against fellow detainees as well as a 

variety of types of sexual abuse and assault, including attempted 

penetration, inappropriate touching, and sexual harassment (for 

descriptions of the 15 substantiated allegations, see app. II). Nearly all of 

the detainees (51 of 53) we interviewed at the 9 facilities we visited 

housing detainees stated that they felt safe at the detention facility in 
Page 17 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

which they were residing, which they attributed to factors such as 

respectful treatment and professionalism by guards and a peaceful 

culture among detainees.32

Table 5: Results of Closed Investigations into Sexual Abuse and Assault Allegations Included in the Joint Integrity Case 

Management System, October 2009-March 2013

Table 5 shows the outcomes of the 215 

closed investigations of the sexual abuse and assault allegations.

Outcome Description

Number of 

investigations

Percentage of 

investigations

Substantiated An investigation determined the alleged incident 

occurred.

15 7

Unsubstantiated An investigation could not determine whether or not the 

alleged incident occurred.

119 55

Unfounded An investigation determined that the alleged incident did 

not occur.

81 38

Source: GAO analysis of Joint Integrity Case Management System data.

Our analysis of the closing reports for these 215 investigations indicated 

several frequently cited reasons why the majority of allegations could not 

be proved or disproved and were therefore reported as unsubstantiated. 

For example, in 29 percent of the unsubstantiated allegations, our 

analysis showed that the alleged victim either chose not to cooperate with 

the investigation or recanted or denied the allegation. Detainees may also 

report false allegations—for example, in an attempt to delay deportation—

according to officials at the facilities we visited. In addition, as DOJ has 

reported, confined individuals, including detainees, may not report sexual 

abuse and assault because doing so requires them to relive an 

experience that was traumatic, they feel shame or embarrassment about 

the incident, or they live in fear of retribution or retaliation from the 

perpetrator.33 Therefore the extent to which data describing reported 

incidents reflect the actual incident rate is unknown. Other frequently cited 

reasons from our analysis were that no evidence of assault existed and 

local law enforcement or prosecutors chose not to pursue the case.34

 32These results cannot be generalized across all detainees in all immigration detention 

facilities.

33Department of Justice, Regulatory Impact Assessment for PREA Final Rule, (2012), 39. 

34According to OPR officials, local law enforcement or prosecutors may choose to decline 

a case for reasons such as insufficient evidence or higher-priority cases.
Page 18 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Less frequently cited reasons were that witness statements, medical 

evidence, or video evidence did not corroborate the allegation. Table 6 

shows our analysis of the number and percentage of closing reports citing 

reasons for unsubstantiated allegations.

Table 6: GAO Analysis of Reasons Why 119 Sexual Abuse and Assault Allegations Reported in the Joint Integrity Case 

Management System Were Determined to Be Unsubstantiated, October 2009-March 2013

Reason Number of cases a Percentage of cases

Investigation did not uncover evidence that substantiated an assault. 46 39

Victim did not cooperate with the investigation, declined to press charges, or recanted 

the allegation.

35 29

Federal or local authorities chose not to pursue the case. 31 26

Incident occurred, but was determined not to constitute sexual abuse or assault. 12 10

Video surveillance footage did not corroborate allegation. 10 8

Medical evidence did not corroborate allegation. 6 5

Witness statements did not corroborate allegations. 10 8

Other reason provided, such as the alleged victim being deported. 30 25

No reason provided. 9 8

Source: GAO analysis of Joint Integrity Case Management System data.

a

Some closing reports cite multiple reasons for the investigation outcome. Therefore, the total does 

not sum to 119, and percentages do not add to 100.

Allegations of sexual abuse and assault have not been consistently 

reported for entry into ICE’s JICMS, and while ICE has issued guidance 

to help improve reporting, developing internal controls to monitor 

reporting could help ICE ensure that it has more complete allegations 

data moving forward. ICE detention standards require that facilities 

provide detainees with several methods to report sexual abuse and 

assault, and all ICE components are required to report any allegations 

they receive to the Joint Intake Center at OPR headquarters, which then 

is to open a case in JICMS.35

 35ICE, Directive 11062.1.

In addition, the OIG and Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties also report certain allegations they receive to 
Page 19 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

the Joint Intake Center or directly to ICE OPR.36

However, we found examples of allegations reported locally by detainees, 

either to facilities or ERO field offices, from fiscal years 2010 through 

2012, that were not included in JICMS because ERO field offices did not 

consistently report allegations they received to the Joint Intake Center.

These reporting methods 

include the fact that detainees can report abuse or assault to any facility 

or ERO staff member orally or in writing; and that detainees can make 

free phone calls to DHS headquarters hotlines, their consulates, and 

other pro bono services (for more information about the reporting and 

investigation process, see app. III). Most sexual abuse and assault 

allegations are reported by detainees to local facility management, rather 

than through headquarters hotlines or other mechanisms. For example, 

approximately three-quarters of the allegations contained in JICMS for 

October 2009 through March 2013 (163 of 215) were reported locally at a 

detention facility. When facility staff learn of an allegation, they are to 

report it to the local ERO field office, which is to officially report the 

allegation to the Joint Intake Center by submitting a Significant Incident 

Report.

37

 36According to OPR officials, if a detainee or third party reports an allegation directly to the 

DHS OIG and the OIG decides to investigate, the OIG would not report the allegation to 

the Joint Intake Center; however, if the OIG decides not to investigate, the OIG is to report 

the allegation to ICE. According to OIG officials, they rarely investigate sexual abuse and 

assault allegations in detention facilities. In particular, DHS Management Directive 0810.1, 

which establishes DHS policy regarding the DHS OIG, specifies that any allegation that 

the OIG chooses not to investigate is to be forwarded to the appropriate DHS component, 

which is OPR for allegations of sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities. According 

to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties officials, the office first refers allegations it 

receives to the DHS OIG, which generally declines and returns them to the Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties, after which the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

investigates them or refers them to ICE OPR. Cases that the Office for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties refers to OPR are to be entered in JICMS.

In particular, 28 of the 70 allegations (40 percent) provided to us by ERO 

field office officials at the 10 facilities we visited for fiscal years 2010 

through 2012 were not in JICMS, and these officials reported that they 

had not submitted Significant Incident Reports for them for reasons 

including that they deemed the allegation to constitute harassment rather 

37We limited our analysis of the extent to which these allegations appear in JICMS data to 

fiscal years 2010 through 2012 because these years of data were available at the time of 

our 10 site visits to detention facilities.
Page 20 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

than abuse, or that they determined that the allegation was unfounded.38

As a result, these 28 allegations were not included in ICE sexual abuse 

and assault data for that time period, although they were required to be 

reported to the Joint Intake Center, according to ICE officials responsible 

for JICMS data.39 In May 2012, ICE issued a directive to establish policies 

and procedures for the prevention of sexual abuse or assault of 

individuals in ICE custody that clarified the requirement to report all 

sexual abuse and assault allegations to the Joint Intake Center.40

According to the ICE Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator, this 

directive, along with subsequent training ICE provided to ERO officials on 

its implementation, was intended to improve the reporting and 

completeness of sexual abuse and assault data captured in JICMS. This 

is a positive step that could help improve the reporting of sexual abuse 

and assault allegations by local ERO officials. However, OPR has not 

developed controls to ensure that ERO field office officials responsible for 

overseeing all facilities are reporting sexual abuse and assault 

allegations, and ERO field office officials told us that they did not submit 

Significant Incident Reports for 3 of 9 sexual abuse or assault allegations 

made after May 2012 at the facilities we visited.41

 38For an additional 9 allegations, although ERO field office officials told us that they did 

not submit a Significant Incident Report for the allegation, OPR located the allegation in 

JICMS, indicating that ICE headquarters learned of the allegations through another DHS 

office or a third party.

According to OPR 

officials, ODO risk-based inspections, which we discuss in more detail 

later in this report, may help ensure that ICE ERO field office officials 

responsible for overseeing facilities ODO inspects report all sexual abuse 

and assault allegations to the Joint Intake Center. However, ODO 

inspected compliance with SAAPI provisions at a minority of facilities—an 

average of less than 8 (3 percent) from fiscal years 2010 through 2013—

and OPR has not implemented controls to ensure reporting by field office 

officials at the remainder of facilities.

39ICE initially communicated this requirement to ERO field office directors in a June 2006 

memo titled Protocol on Reporting and Tracking of Assaults.

40ICE, Directive 11062.1.

41These 3 allegations consisted of 1 allegation that OPR could not locate in JICMS and 2 

allegations for which ERO field office officials said that they did not submit Significant 

Incident Reports. While field office officials reported the latter 2 allegations by electronic 

mail to the Joint Intake Center or through the local OPR field office, they did not do so in 

accordance with ICE Directive 11062.1, which requires that the local ERO field office 

director submit a Significant Incident Report within 24 hours of an allegation.
Page 21 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government highlights the 

need for capturing information to meet program objectives and 

determining that relevant, reliable, and timely information is available for 

management decision-making purposes.42 Without complete data on 

sexual abuse and assault allegations at immigration detention facilities, 

ICE does not have all pertinent information needed for detention 

management decision making. In the past, ICE has used JICMS primarily 

to oversee investigations of individual allegations. However, according to 

agency officials, ICE plans to use reported sexual abuse allegations 

maintained in JICMS for incident review and monitoring as well.43 The 

ICE May 2012 directive describes requirements for data use including 

that the ICE Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator analyze and report 

on sexual abuse allegations, identify problem areas and recommend 

corrective actions for the agency, and provide an assessment of the 

agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse and assault in a publicly 

available annual report.44 The DHS PREA notice of proposed rulemaking

also proposes to require that ICE collect and aggregate data related to 

sexual abuse and assault to facilitate the agency’s ability to detect 

possible patterns and help prevent future incidents. Developing and 

implementing additional controls to ensure reporting of sexual abuse and 

assault allegations by ERO field offices to the Joint Intake Center could 

help better ensure the completeness of JICMS sexual abuse and assault 

data and thereby strengthen these data’s usefulness for making detention 

management decisions and meeting these program management goals.

 42GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

43In addition, DHS used JICMS sexual abuse data in the regulatory impact analysis 

accompanying DHS’s notice of proposed rulemaking to identify a benchmark level of 

sexual abuse allegations and estimate the number of incidents at DHS confinement 

facilities. See DHS, Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and 

Assault in Confinement Facilities: Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (2012), 24-26.

44ICE, Directive 11062.1.
Page 22 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

According to ICE officials, ICE detention standards are intended to 

encourage detainees to report sexual abuse and assault and require 

facilities to provide multiple methods to report abuse; however, ICE data 

on sexual abuse allegations could also be incomplete because of barriers 

detainees sometimes face in reporting abuse.45 The National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission reported that efforts to enhance reporting 

depend on the accessibility and safety of mechanisms to report sexual 

abuse, and agencies should make reporting sexual abuse as easy, 

private, and secure as possible, including by providing detainees access 

to the DHS OIG and other hotlines. Further, according to the National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission, some confined individuals, 

including detainees, will never feel comfortable reporting abuse internally 

to a corrections employee, and thus it is important to provide them with 

the option of confidentially reporting to an outside entity. Nearly all 

detainees we interviewed at 9 facilities (46 of 50) reported that they knew 

of at least one mechanism to report sexual abuse; however, some 

detainees (7 of 53) expressed concerns with reporting abuse, such as 

fear of retaliation or uncertainty that the allegation would be treated with 

confidentiality.46

During our site visits to 10 facilities and review of phone records from 

approximately 200 detention facilities, we observed indications that 

detainees may sometimes face barriers to accessing the DHS OIG hotline 

for reporting abuse at some of the facilities we visited. Although detainees 

report most sexual abuse and assault allegations to local facility 

management, consistent with the National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission’s recommendations to facilitate reporting by detainees who 

may feel uncomfortable reporting internally, ICE requires that detainees at 

ICE has taken steps intended to help improve the 

reporting of sexual abuse and assault allegations by, for example, 

explicitly forbidding retaliation for reporting sexual abuse and assault in its 

detention standards, establishing a hotline to serve as an alternative 

method for detainees to report sexual abuse and assault to ICE 

headquarters, and appointing an agency-wide Prevention of Sexual 

Assault coordinator to oversee efforts to improve prevention and 

response practices, including with respect to reporting issues.

 45See appendix IV for more information about SAAPI provisions included in ICE detention 

standards. 

46We interviewed 53 detainees at 9 facilities. Of these, 3 detainees at 3 facilities did not 

state whether they knew of at least one mechanism to report sexual abuse.

ICE Is Working to 

Minimize Barriers to 

Detainees Reporting 

Abuse, but Certain 

Barriers Could Result in 

Unreported Allegations
Page 23 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

all facilities have access to make free phone calls to the OIG to report 

abuse, including sexual abuse and assault allegations. During our site 

visits, we attempted to connect to the OIG hotline using phones in 

detainee housing pods and had mixed success in reaching the hotline. 

Specifically, in 5 out of 19 total attempts using phones at 10 facilities, we 

were unable to reach the OIG hotline (4 instances) or were unable to 

leave a message for the OIG (1 instance). We were unable to determine if 

the problem was with the phone or the OIG hotline itself. We previously 

reported in 2007 that systematic problems in facility telephone systems 

restricted detainees’ abilities to reach the OIG hotline and other pro bono 

numbers.47

OIG officials were able to provide a possible reason for why we were not 

able to leave a voice message on the hotline from one telephone, but did 

not know why calls placed to the hotline were not connected in four of our 

attempted calls and as shown by phone records data. According to OIG 

officials, the OIG hotline is not staffed with a live operator, but permits 

detainees to leave voice recordings, which OIG staff members are to 

listen to and document. These OIG officials explained that we may not 

have been able to leave a voice recording on the OIG hotline because the 

voice recording mailbox was full because of an OIG staffing shortage. 

More specifically, the OIG hotline voice recording mailbox can hold 135 

Specifically, we found that from November 2005 through 

November 2006, the percentage of unsuccessful calls placed to pro bono 

numbers programmed into ICE’s telephone system ranged from 

approximately 26 percent to 65 percent each month, and that systemwide facility success rates for complete calls showed a similar trend of 

performance. We made seven recommendations to ensure that detainees 

could access resources by telephone and that all detainee complaints 

were reviewed and acted upon as necessary. DHS implemented these 

recommendations by monitoring a new contractor for the telephones, 

posting pro bono numbers in detainee housing areas, and testing facility 

telephones, among other actions. Our review of phone records data 

maintained by ERO’s phone services contractor for fiscal years 2010 

through 2012 showed that approximately 14 percent of calls placed to the 

OIG hotline by detainees from about 210 facilities were not connected, 

primarily because of detainees ending the call prior to its completion or 

the OIG hotline not answering the call.

 47GAO, Alien Detention Standards: Telephone Access Problems Were Pervasive at 

Detention Facilities; Other Deficiencies Did Not Show a Pattern of Noncompliance, 

GAO-07-875 (Washington D.C.: July 6, 2007). 
Page 24 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

voice messages, after which the hotline does not permit callers to leave 

voice recordings. According to OIG officials, OIG staff are to empty the 

mailbox every day, but during staffing shortages, the mailbox may remain 

full. For example, OIG officials stated that the OIG experienced a staffing 

shortage from late May 2013 to late June 2013. OIG officials said that this 

staffing shortage has been resolved, but were unaware that the OIG 

could monitor hotline availability to detainees through connectivity data 

collected by ERO’s phone services contractor. OIG officials stated that 

receiving data on connectivity issues would be helpful to monitor the 

ability of detainees to successfully call the OIG hotline from detention 

facilities. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls

for information to be communicated to individuals within an entity who 

need it and in a form and within a time frame that enables the individuals 

to carry out their responsibilities.48 OIG and ERO coordination to ensure 

OIG access to OIG hotline connectivity data could better ensure that the 

OIG has information it needs to identify and address any technical issues 

detainees face in reaching the OIG hotline. Receiving these data could 

also help better position the OIG to fulfill its responsibility under the 

Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to receive and review 

complaints and information from any source alleging abuses of civil rights 

and civil liberties by DHS employees and employees of DHS 

contractors.49

Detainees may also face confusion in how to contact the OIG hotline 

given that the navigation required to place a call to the hotline within the 

telephone system generally requires several steps, or may not leave 

sufficient information on the OIG hotline voice mail system, according to 

DHS officials. For example, these officials explained that detainees may 

not leave their names or the name of the facility in which they are 

confined in their voice mail message, which makes it difficult for ICE to 

take action on the allegation.

ICE officials acknowledged that there have been difficulties with 

detainees connecting to the OIG hotline from detention centers and 

stated that ICE established an alternative ICE-run hotline—the 

Community and Detainee Helpline—in February 2013 that detainees can 

 48GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

49Pub. L. No. 95-452, § 8I(f)(1)(B), 92 Stat. 1101, added by Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, § 8304, 118 Stat. 3638, 3868.
Page 25 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

use to directly report sexual abuse and assault allegations to ICE.50

According to ICE officials, the Community and Detainee Helpline—which 

is staffed with live operators for 12 hours each day—receives 

approximately 150 to 250 calls each day, over 60 percent of which pertain 

to detained individuals, and as of September 2013, had received a total of 

83 calls concerning physical or sexual abuse.

Files documenting investigations of sexual abuse and assault at the 10 

facilities we visited varied in the extent to which they contained complete 

documentation of the investigation and outcomes. OPR tracks sexual 

abuse and assault allegations reported to ICE headquarters via JICMS; 

however, individual facilities are responsible for maintaining investigative 

files for allegations of incidents occurring in those facilities. ICE detention 

standards specify that facilities are to document and track incidents of 

sexual abuse and assault in order to monitor, evaluate, and assess the 

effectiveness of the facility’s SAAPI program. In particular, ICE detention 

standards specify that facilities are to maintain investigative files for 

sexual abuse allegations to include information such as incident and 

investigative reports, medical forms, and supporting memorandums, 

among other things.51 Internal control standards state that management is 

responsible for developing detailed policies and procedures to fit the

agency’s operations, and according to ERO officials, these files should 

demonstrate that an investigation was complete and thorough. Further, 

federal internal control standards call for agencies to capture information 

needed to meet program objectives and determine that relevant, reliable, 

and timely information is available for decision making.52

Our review of the facilities’ investigative files for all 70 allegations of 

sexual abuse and assault occurring from fiscal years 2010 through 2012 

at the 10 facilities we visited, however, showed that the files did not 

consistently document and track information supporting the investigation 

of the sexual abuse incidents. Specifically, our review showed that these 

 50The Community and Detainee Helpline is available at all detention facilities authorized to 

hold detainees for more than 72 hours, according to ICE officials. 

51ICE facilities subject to the 2007 Residential Standards, 2008 PBNDS, and 2011 

PBNDS are required to adhere to these standards for investigative files; however, facilities 

under the 2000 NDS are not required to adhere to these standards. 

52GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

Investigative Files 

Maintained at Facilities 

Varied in Completeness, 

Potentially Limiting Their 

Usefulness in Monitoring 

and Analyzing Sexual 

Abuse and Assault at 

Individual Facilities
Page 26 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

investigative files generally contained narrative information pertaining to 

the circumstances of the allegation; however, they varied in the extent to 

which they contained supporting documents, such as police reports and 

the outcome of the investigations. We conducted a more detailed analysis 

of the investigative files for a nonprobability sample of 15 of the 70, 

including at least 1 allegation file from each of the 9 facilities we visited at 

which there were allegations from fiscal years 2010 through 2012. Of the 

15 files we reviewed in more detail, 9 files from 5 facilities did not include 

supporting documentation, and 8 files from 5 facilities did not include 

information about the outcomes of the investigation.53

According to the ICE Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator, 

information contained in facility files is important for SAAPI program 

management because it provides ICE with a basis to review how the 

facility responded to sexual abuse or assault allegations and a means for 

the facility’s SAAPI program coordinator to determine how the facility 

could improve its response to allegations or to identify systemic or root 

causes of abuse. In addition, the DHS PREA notice of proposed 

rulemaking would establish requirements for facility investigations, which 

would apply to all facilities once the rule’s standards are incorporated into 

facility contracts. The notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to require

that facilities conduct a sexual abuse incident review at the conclusion of 

every investigation of sexual abuse and, where the allegation was not 

determined to be unfounded, prepare a written report recommending 

whether the allegation or investigation indicates that a change in policy or 

practice could better prevent, detect, or respond to sexual abuse, among 

other new requirements. By clarifying guidance to help ensure that ICE 

and facility administrators correctly document investigations into sexual 

abuse and assault allegations, ICE could better ensure the completeness 

According to ICE 

officials and facility administrators, the files may be incomplete because 

ICE guidance does not provide facility officials with a clear understanding 

of what specific information they should include, or the missing 

documentation—such as the results of the forensic medical 

examination—is retained by another department within the facility, such 

as the medical clinic, among other things.

 53Our more detailed analysis of the investigative files for these allegations identified files 

at a total of 8 facilities that did not include either supporting documentation or information 

about the outcomes of the investigation. ICE’s contracts or agreements with 4 of these 8 

facilities cited detention standards that included specific requirements for maintaining

investigative files for sexual abuse allegations at the time the allegation was reported.
Page 27 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

of facility files for SAAPI program management purposes and better 

position ICE and facility administrators to comply with the provisions of 

the DHS notice of proposed rulemaking.

ICE has four sets of detention standards for facilities, three of which 

include provisions on SAAPI and one that does not include SAAPI 

provisions. Specifically, the 2000 NDS do not include such provisions, but 

the three sets of standards that ICE subsequently developed—the 2007 

Family Residential Standards, the 2008 PBNDS, and the 2011 PBNDS—

each include specific SAAPI provisions. The SAAPI provisions included in 

the standards have increased in number and breadth over time, as shown 

in table 7. The 2007 and 2008 standards include SAAPI provisions 

spanning various topical areas, such as written policies and procedures, 

program coordination, and investigation and prosecution. Most recently, 

ICE developed the 2011 PBNDS, which include SAAPI provisions that 

address the same topical areas as the 2008 PBNDS and are similarly 

intended to apply to adult facilities. However, the 2011 PBNDS include 

additional requirements, such as that written policies and procedures 

include statement of a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual abuse 

or assault, and broader requirements within the topical areas, such as 

that intergovernmental service agreement facilities designate a SAAPI 

coordinator rather than only service processing centers and contract 

detention facilities. Appendix IV provides more detailed information about 

SAAPI provisions currently used across ICE detention standards for adult 

facilities.

Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Provisions in 

Detention Standards 

Vary in Content and 

Applicability across 

Facilities

Three of Four Sets of DHS 

Detention Standards 

Include Provisions 

Focused on Sexual Abuse 

and Assault
Page 28 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Table 7: Examples of Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions in U.S Immigration Customs 

and Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards for Adult Facilities

Topical area 

2000 National 

Detention Standards 

requirements

2008 Performance-Based National 

Detention Standards (PBNDS) 

requirements

Requirements in 2011 PBNDS beyond 

those in 2008 PBNDS

Written policies 

and procedures 

None for SAAPI. Require facility administrators to have 

written SAAPI policies and procedures. 

Require written SAAPI policies and 

procedures to include additional 

components, such as a statement of a 

zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual 

abuse or assault.

Program 

coordination

None for SAAPI. Require service processing centers and 

contract detention facilities to designate a 

SAAPI coordinator to, among other things, 

coordinate the gathering of reports on 

incidents of sexual abuse or assault.

Require all facilities that house detainees 

for more than 72 hours, including 

intergovernmental service agreement 

facilities, to designate a SAAPI coordinator.

Investigation and 

prosecution

Require facilities to 

develop a process for 

investigating detainee 

grievances, including 

allegations, but do not 

specifically address 

sexual abuse or 

assault investigations.

Stipulate that a sensitive and coordinated 

response is necessary when a detainee 

alleges sexual abuse or assault, and that 

all allegations are promptly and effectively 

investigated. Require that staff preserve 

the crime scene, when possible, and 

arrange for the victim to undergo a forensic 

medical examination, based on factors 

such as availability of in-house expertise 

and security considerations.

Require that all investigations into alleged 

sexual assault be prompt, thorough, 

objective, and conducted by trained 

investigators. In addition, the facility 

administrator must arrange for the victim to 

undergo an off-site forensic medical 

examination in all cases, rather than based 

on such factors as availability of in-house 

expertise and general security 

considerations. Also require the facility 

SAAPI coordinator to review the results of 

every investigation of sexual abuse to 

assess and improve prevention and 

response efforts.

Source: GAO analysis of ICE detention standards.

Note: The 2007 Family Residential Standards are not included in this table because the table focuses 

on facilities that generally house adult immigration detainees. The 2007 Family Residential Standards 

are intended to apply to facilities that house families, and as of August 2013, 1 of ICE’s 251 detention

facilities housed families.

SAAPI provisions in the DHS PREA notice of proposed rulemaking build 

on those included in the PBNDS and other DHS detention policies, and 

according to DHS officials, are similar to the provisions in the 2011 

PBNDS, with certain differences. In addition, the provisions in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking in many respects incorporate the standards for 

immigration detention facilities recommended by the National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission, as shown in appendix V. As a set of 

regulations, if finalized, DHS’s PREA notice of proposed rulemaking
Page 29 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

would carry more legal weight than agency policy with respect to the roles 

and responsibilities of ICE employees.54 DOJ’s PREA rule, from which 

various provisions in DHS’s notice of proposed rulemaking adopt exact 

language, with certain differences—such as content for sexual abuse 

training—applies to all facilities in a state, including state and local 

facilities under agreement with USMS that house ICE detainees.55

Appendix VI provides examples of select differences between the 

standards included in DOJ’s PREA rule and DHS’s PREA notice of 

proposed rulemaking.

ICE has information regarding the detention standards and SAAPI 

provisions generally in place at different types of detention facilities; 

however, ICE does not have reliable information to identify which 

detention standards and SAAPI provisions apply to individual facilities. As 

discussed previously, ICE establishes the standards applicable to its 

detention facilities through either individual contracts or agreements. 

According to ICE officials and documentation, the SAAPI provisions cited 

in facility contracts or agreements vary by facility, but there are general 

patterns across facility types, as summarized in table 8. ICE detention 

program officials explained that not all facilities are bound to ICE’s most 

recent standards because of resource considerations. In particular, if 

facilities that house very few detainees require additional funds to adopt 

more recent standards, it might not be cost-effective for ICE to 

 54Provisions in the rule that are applicable to ICE would be effective on the date a final 

version of the rule takes effect and would carry more legal weight than agency policy for 

ICE and ICE employees. Provisions in the rule that are applicable to facilities would be 

effective once they are incorporated into facility contracts and would therefore carry the 

same legal weight as the detention standards in existing contracts. 77 Fed. Reg. at 

75,304.

55State-controlled facilities, including USMS intergovernmental agreement facilities, that 

do not implement the DOJ PREA rule may cause state forfeiture of DOJ grant funding. In 

particular, PREA provides that DOJ shall withhold 5 percent of prison-related grant 

funding from any state that fails to certify that it has adopted, and is in full compliance with, 

DOJ’s PREA standards or that fails to provide an assurance that not less than 5 percent of 

the relevant grant funding shall be used to enable the state to adopt, and achieve full 

compliance with, DOJ’s PREA standards toward future certification. See 42 U.S.C. 

15607(c)(2). Under DOJ’s PREA rule, the state’s certification that it is in full compliance 

with the PREA standards applies to all facilities under the operational control of the state’s 

executive branch, including facilities operated by private entities on behalf of the state’s 

executive branch. See 28 C.F.R. § 115.501. DOJ’s PREA rule therefore does not contain 

noncompliance sanctions for county intergovernmental agreement facilities that fail to 

adopt or implement DOJ’s PREA standards. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 37,115. 

ICE Does Not Have 

Consistent and Reliable 

Information to Determine 

the Extent to Which 

Sexual Abuse and Assault 

Provisions Apply to 

Different Facilities
Page 30 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

renegotiate the contract or agreement. ICE detention program and 

contracting officials also stated that, in general, the agency is prioritizing 

modifications of contracts or agreements to first implement the 2011 

PBNDS at facilities that exclusively house ICE detainees and that house 

the greatest number of detainees—service processing centers, contract 

detention facilities, and dedicated intergovernmental service agreement 

facilities.

Table 8: Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions Applicable to Immigration Detention 

Facilities, as of August 2013 

Facility type

Detention standards generally applicable to facility type, according to 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and 

documentation 

Average percentage of 

detainee population, fiscal 

years 2010-2012

Service processing 

center

a

2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS). All service 

processing centers have signed contract modifications adopting the 2011 

PBNDS in full.

12

Contract detention 

facility 

2011 PBNDS. All contract detention facilities have signed contract 

modifications adopting the 2011 PBNDS in full.

19

Dedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement 

2007 Family Residential Standards, 2008 PBNDS, or 2011 PBNDS. All but 2

of the dedicated intergovernmental service agreement facilities have signed 

contract modifications specifically adopting the 2011 PBNDS SAAPI 

provisions, but not the 2011 PBNDS pertaining to other topical areas.b

22

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

2000 National Detention Standards, 2008 PBNDS, or 2011 PBNDS. In 2012, 

ICE sent letters to the 53 nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement 

facilities that house detainees for more than 72 hours and have average daily 

populations of more than 10 detainees requesting that they sign contract 

modifications to specifically adopt the 2011 PBNDS SAAPI provisions. As of 

August 2013, 37 facilities had signed a modification.

34

Family residential 2007 Family Residential Standards <1

U.S. Marshals Service 

intergovernmental 

agreement or contract

U.S. Marshals Service intergovernmental agreement and contract facilities 

are not generally required to adhere to ICE SAAPI provisions. However, 

these facilities are to adhere to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) final Prison 

Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) rule. 

14

Source: GAO analysis of ICE testimony and documentation.

a

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding.

b

ICE classifies 1 of the 2 facilities that had not signed a contract modification as a family residential 

facility, but it is considered a dedicated intergovernmental service agreement facility for the purpose 

of this report because it was converted to a women-only facility in 2009 and no longer houses 

families. The 2 facilities that had not signed a contract modification, but were governed by the SAAPI 

provisions included in the 2007 Residential Standards or 2008 PBNDS, housed an average of 4 

percent of the total detainee population from fiscal years 2010 through 2012.

ICE headquarters and ERO field office officials do not have consistent 

and reliable information readily available on which detention standards—

and the SAAPI provisions they contain—apply to which individual 
Page 31 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

facilities. OAQ contracting officials maintain information on the applicable 

detention standards for ICE’s detention facilities, but this information was 

not fully consistent with ICE contracts and agreements with those 

facilities. OAQ headquarters officials provided us with a spreadsheet 

listing their understanding of standards cited in ICE’s contracts and 

agreements with detention facilities; however, when we reviewed 

detention standards listed in this spreadsheet against the standards listed 

in a sample of 20 facility contracts and agreements, the standards listed 

in the spreadsheet were not consistent with the facility contracts and 

agreements for almost half (9) of these facilities.56

We also requested that ERO headquarters provide us with information 

about the standards governing each detention facility, and found 

discrepancies between facility contracts and agreements and ERO’s data. 

In particular, ERO detention program officials provided us with the data 

they maintain on detention standards—a listing of the detention standards 

under which ERO inspects each facility—that they extracted from the 

According to OAQ 

officials, OAQ retains ICE contracts and agreements with detention 

facilities in electronic files, but does not have a central system in which all 

contract and agreement documentation is stored. OAQ officials explained 

that in 2012 OAQ’s four regional divisions, each of which oversees 

detention contracts and agreements for facilities in a different area within 

the United States, manually reviewed ICE’s contracts and agreements 

with its 251 facilities and recorded the detention standards cited in a 

spreadsheet. OAQ reviewed and updated this spreadsheet to furnish us 

with information on the standards cited in ICE’s contracts and agreements 

with detention facilities, and according to OAQ officials, it may have 

missed some changes that occurred since it initially developed the 

spreadsheet. However, the standards in the contracts and agreements for 

facilities for which inconsistent information was recorded did not change 

within the last year. During the course of our audit work, OAQ officials 

corrected the data inconsistencies we identified through our review of the 

sample of 20 contracts and agreements; however, without checking its 

data for the remaining 231 facilities, OAQ does not have reasonable 

assurance that its data are consistent and reliable.

 56We selected this sample to include (1) facilities at which we conducted site visits and (2) 

facilities for which ERO and OAQ information on facility standards differed.
Page 32 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Facility Performance Management System.57 However, the detention 

standards cited for 8 of the same sample of 20 facilities for which we 

reviewed contract and agreement documentation were inconsistent. We 

also observed differences between information maintained by OAQ and 

ERO, in that OAQ and ERO recorded different standards in their 

spreadsheets or in information on facilities’ standards that they 

subsequently provided for 10 facilities.58

In addition, ICE officials stated that ERO’s data reflect the standards 

under which ERO inspects facilities rather than those cited in the facility 

contracts or agreements, and that ERO performs inspections under 

standards that are more rigorous than those cited in its contracts and 

agreements with some facilities. In particular, according to ERO officials, 

at facilities at which the 2000 NDS are cited in the contracts or 

agreements, ERO field office officials responsible for overseeing the 

facilities, or the administrators operating the facilities, may request that 

inspections be completed under the 2008 PBNDS because they believe 

the facilities are exceeding 2000 NDS requirements and want that 

formally confirmed through inspections. In such instances, ERO generally 

inspects the facilities under the more rigorous standards, according to 

ERO officials. A senior ICE official responsible for detention policy 

explained that ERO inspecting a facility under more rigorous standards 

than those cited in the facility’s contract or agreement is acceptable with 

agreement from the facility, and can be beneficial to ICE because it 

permits the agency to hold facilities accountable for more rigorous 

requirements. For example, by inspecting a facility with a contract that 

cites the 2000 NDS under the 2008 PBNDS, ERO is able to hold the 

facility accountable for SAAPI provisions that would not be required of the 

facility if it were inspected under the 2000 NDS, which do not include 

SAAPI provisions. In addition, this senior official stated that it can be more 

ERO headquarters officials 

attributed one discrepancy between the contracts and agreements and 

ERO’s data to an error in the Facility Performance Management 

System—a relatively new system released in June 2012—that was in the 

final stages of testing during our review.

 57The Facility Performance Management System is a database for identifying and 

providing access to detention inspection information and facilitating the production and 

maintenance of facility analytics and reporting.

58We included the contracts for these 10 facilities in the sample of 20 contracts we 

reviewed.
Page 33 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

efficient and cost-effective for ICE to ensure that facilities adhere to more 

rigorous standards through the inspection process rather than modifying 

the facilities’ contracts or agreements to include the more rigorous 

standards because, for example, facilities may request to open 

negotiations for the entire contract and request additional funding from 

ICE.

At the field level, we observed that ICE field office and facility program 

officials overseeing 5 of the 10 facilities we visited did not have reliable 

information about the standards cited in their contracts or agreements 

with ICE. In particular, ERO DSM and field office officials at 2 of the 10 

facilities asserted that the facility’s contract or agreement cited the 2008 

PBNDS when its contract cited the 2000 NDS. ERO field office officials at 

3 additional facilities stated that the facility had signed a contract 

modification adopting the 2011 PBNDS SAAPI provisions when it had not, 

or vice versa.59 ERO field office officials attributed these inconsistencies 

to factors such as OAQ providing them with inaccurate information and 

interpreting the language about detention standards included in the 

contract differently from OAQ headquarters officials.60

Inconsistent information about the detention standards cited in facilities’

contracts or agreements can affect facility owners’ and administrators’

understanding of their responsibilities to ICE and the information available 

to decision makers and stakeholders regarding the standards applicable 

to the facilities. Our review of ICE facility inspection reports from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2013, which we discuss in more detail later in this 

report, for the same sample of 20 facility contracts and agreements,

showed that there were at least 10 instances at 2 facilities in which ERO 

or ICE’s ODO assessed compliance with the 2008 PBNDS, including the 

SAAPI standard, when the facility was contractually bound to the 2000 

NDS, which have no SAAPI standard. The administrators we spoke with 

 59DSM and ERO field office officials at the other 5 facilities we visited had accurate 

information about the standards to which the facilities they oversaw were contractually 

bound.

60Headquarters OAQ officials told us that when a contract or agreement states that the 

facility must perform in accordance with the most current edition of ICE’s detention 

standards, it means that facilities must comply with whatever the most current standards 

were at the time the contract was signed; however, officials from one ERO field office 

interpreted this language to require compliance with standards issued after the contract 

was signed.
Page 34 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

at these 2 facilities were unaware that they were contractually required to 

adhere to the 2000 NDS, not the 2008 PBNDS. According to ERO 

officials, ERO has not established a process for documenting that a 

facility administrator understands that the standards under which ERO is 

inspecting the administrator’s facility exceed those required by the facility 

contract or agreement, or the facility administrator’s consent to such an 

inspection in these instances. Nevertheless, ERO may discuss the issue 

and gain agreement with facility administrators by means such as 

electronic mail, according to ERO officials. These officials also stated that 

ERO can generally remove detainees from a facility if it does not comply 

with the standards under which ERO inspects the facility, even if those 

standards are more rigorous than those cited in the facilities’ contracts 

and agreements, and thus it is not always imperative for inspection 

purposes for ERO to modify its contracts and agreements with facilities to 

incorporate the more rigorous standards.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for 

agencies to develop control activities to help ensure that data are 

accurately recorded and communicated to management and others within 

the entity who need them and specifies that all transactions and other 

significant events need to be clearly documented, and the documentation 

should be readily available for examination.61

Reliable information on the SAAPI provisions cited in facilities’ contracts 

or agreements could also help ICE better plan for the resources and time 

necessary to implement DHS’s PREA rule. According to DHS’s PREA 

notice of proposed rulemaking, once the rule is finalized, DHS would 

establish a process for requiring that all 126 detention facilities under an 

ICE contract or agreement (family residential facilities, service processing 

centers, contract detention facilities, ICE dedicated intergovernmental 

service agreement facilities, and ICE nondedicated intergovernmental 

Documenting and 

maintaining reliable information on the detention standards cited in 

facilities’ contracts and agreements with ICE, as well as recording any 

agreements by facilities to undergo inspection under more rigorous 

standards, could better position ICE headquarters officials, ERO field 

office officials, facility administrators, and other stakeholders, such as 

inspectors and auditors, to have a reliable and consistent understanding 

of applicable facility detention standards.

 61GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 35 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

service agreement facilities) comply with the final rule’s SAAPI 

provisions.62 In particular, according to the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

the proposed provisions would be phased in through the inclusion in new 

contracts and contract renewals of an obligation to adopt and comply with 

the provisions set forth in the final rule. Accordingly, the SAAPI provisions 

in the final rule would supersede the SAAPI provisions these 126 facilities 

currently have in place under the 2007 Residential Standards, 2008 

PBNDS, or 2011 PBNDS, as well as establish SAAPI provisions at those 

facilities operating under the 2000 NDS that currently have no such 

provisions. According to OAQ officials, incorporating the provisions 

proposed in DHS’s PREA notice of proposed rulemaking will likely take 

multiple years to complete. According to DHS, the department cannot be 

certain how much, if any, of the costs associated with implementation it 

will pay, as those costs will be determined through negotiation with 

facilities.63 These costs could include, for example, staff training, 

providing detainees with access to outside confidential support services, 

and documentation of cross-gender pat-downs. Reliable baseline 

information about SAAPI provisions currently applicable to facilities, as 

established in their contracts and agreements with ICE, could help ICE 

estimate any costs associated with implementing the final DHS PREA 

rule that the department might incur during contract negotiations, and 

determine appropriate time frames for contract negotiations. Documenting 

and maintaining reliable information on the detention standards applicable 

to facilities across ICE components could better position ICE officials to 

have accurate information to effectively plan for program operations, such 

as the implementation of DHS’s final PREA rule.

 62DHS’s proposed standards would not apply to the 125 USMS intergovernmental 

agreement facilities that house ICE detainees, which are governed by DOJ’s PREA rule.

63See DHS, Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in 

Confinement Facilities: Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (2012).
Page 36 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

During fiscal years 2010 through 2013, ICE provided oversight of its three 

sets of SAAPI provisions at 157 of approximately 250 detention facilities 

that housed about 90 percent of ICE detainees. ICE officials said that 

they did not perform SAAPI oversight at the remaining facilities because 

they inspected the facilities under the 2000 NDS, which do not have 

SAAPI provisions.64 In particular, ICE used four primary mechanisms for 

assessing facilities’ compliance with SAAPI provisions: (1) annual 

inspections conducted by an ERO contractor, (2) periodic inspections by 

ODO personnel, (3) continuous ERO on-site monitoring provided by a 

DSM, and (4) annual self-assessments by certain facilities that passed 

two consecutive ERO inspections and met other requirements.65

 64As previously discussed, ICE inspects certain facilities contractually bound to, or under 

agreement with, the 2000 NDS under the 2008 PBNDS.

According to ICE officials responsible for facility oversight, these different 

oversight methods complement each other and serve different purposes. 

ERO inspections are to assess compliance with all standards across 

facilities and, according to ERO officials, ERO generally focuses on 

65Specifically, ERO and ODO performed a total of 140 inspections at 42 facilities to 

directly assess SAAPI compliance from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. Of these 140 

inspections, 134 were performed using the 2008 PBNDS SAAPI provisions, 4 were 

performed using the 2011 PBNDS SAAPI provisions, and 2 used the 2007 Family 

Residential Standards SAAPI provisions. Certain facilities started performing annual 

facility self-assessments in fiscal year 2012, and 93 facilities had completed selfassessments as of August 2013. In addition to passing two consecutive ERO inspections, 

eligible facilities (1) house detainees for less than 72 hours, or (2) house an average daily 

population of 10 detainees or fewer. ICE requires all facilities participating in the selfassessment program to comply with the 2011 SAAPI standard. According to ICE officials, 

prior to fiscal year 2012, ICE inspected these facilities under the NDS, which do not have 

a SAAPI standard.

DHS Focused Its 

Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Oversight on 

Facilities Housing 

Most Detainees and 

Found Most Facilities 

Compliant with 

Provisions

ICE Used Various 

Oversight Methods to 

Assess Compliance with 

SAAPI Provisions at More 

than Half of Facilities That 

Housed About 90 Percent 

of Detainees
Page 37 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

performing inspections at facilities that that house 10 or more detainees.66

ODO conducts more limited, but in-depth inspections of certain standards 

at facilities selected using a risk-based approach.67

ICE used one or more oversight mechanisms to assess SAAPI 

compliance at certain facilities ERO identified as subject to the 2007 

Family Residential Standards or the 2008 or 2011 PBNDS.

DSMs are to monitor

facility adherence to ICE’s detention standards on a day-to-day basis and 

provide facilities with technical guidance, including for implementing

corrective action plans, as needed.

68 In fiscal year 

2012, for example, ICE assessed compliance with SAAPI provisions at 61 

facilities and used at least two oversight mechanisms at 28 of the 61 

facilities at which it assessed SAAPI compliance (46 percent). These 28 

facilities housed about 55 percent of ICE detainees in fiscal year 2012, as 

illustrated in figure 2.69

 66These facilities also are to have a total of 60 or more man days, where a man day 

constitutes one night spent by one detainee. About 130 of ICE’s approximately 250 

detention facilities had an average daily detainee population of 10 or more detainees from 

fiscal years 2010 through 2012.

67According to ODO officials, ODO selects the facilities it inspects using a risk-based 

model that uses deficiencies identified in ERO’s annual inspections, number and type of 

allegations, average daily detention population, deficiencies identified in prior ODO 

inspections, and date of last ODO inspection.

68According to ICE officials, in some instances a facility will request or agree to be 

inspected under a set of standards that is more rigorous than required by its contract or 

agreement toward demonstrating that it is exceeding its required standards. Therefore, a 

facility that is required by its contract or agreement to adhere to the 2000 NDS, which do

not include a SAAPI standard, may be inspected under the 2008 or 2011 PBNDS, which 

include a SAAPI standard. 

69ICE did not assess SAAPI compliance through inspections or the DSM program at 

facilities in the self-assessment program in fiscal year 2012. 
Page 38 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Figure 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Oversight Mechanisms 

That Included Sexual Abuse and Assault Oversight by Detention Facilities and 

Average Daily Detainee Population, Fiscal Year 2012

Note: According to ERO officials, DSMs may monitor the reporting process of sexual abuse and 

assault allegations, regardless of inspection standards.

ICE oversight of its three sets of SAAPI provisions from fiscal years 2010 

through 2013 identified few deficiencies through ERO and ODO 

inspections, and ERO officials provided one example of a SAAPI 

deficiency identified through the DSM program. However, ERO’s review 

of results from the first year of the self-assessment program identified 

deficiencies with SAAPI provisions at over a third of facilities. In addition, 

DOJ provides oversight related to preventing sexual abuse and assault at 

facilities under agreement with USMS that house detainees.

ICE Oversight Identified 

SAAPI-Related 

Deficiencies, but ERO 

Inspections Were 

Performed Inconsistently
Page 39 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

ERO identified few deficiencies in facility compliance with the 2008 or 

2011 SAAPI provisions from fiscal years 2010 through 2013, and found 1 

facility did not meet the overall 2011 SAAPI standard.70 In particular, ERO 

inspections identified deficiencies during 11 of 110 inspections (10

percent) at 39 facilities. Most deficiencies (7 of 11) were in SAAPI priority 

provisions, such as the provision that staff be trained in required SAAPI 

areas.71

Table 9: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Inspection Results of the 2008 Performance-Based National Detention 

Standards Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2013

Table 9 summarizes the deficiencies identified by the inspections 

ERO performed under the 2008 SAAPI provisions.

SAAPI standard provision

Meets 

standard

Does not 

meet 

standard

Not 

applicable

Applicable to contract detention facilities or service processing centers only

For service processing centers and contract detention facilities, the written policy and 

procedure has been approved by the ERO field office director.

50 3 55

For service processing centers and contract detention facilities, the Sexual Assault 

Awareness Information brochure is available for detainees.

78 a 1 29

Applicable to all detention facilities and related to sexual abuse and assault allegations

Tracking statistics and reports are readily available for review by the inspectors. 78 1 29

 70Our analysis included inspection reports available as of September 23, 2013. At that 

time, all but 2 inspection reports scheduled for fiscal year 2013 were available for our 

review. During this time period, ERO contractors performed nearly all inspections under 

the 2008 PBNDS (108 inspections at 39 facilities) and a few inspections under the 2011 

PBNDS (2 inspections at 2 facilities). ERO did not perform any inspections under the 2007 

Family Residential Standards during this time period. See appendix VII for the SAAPI 

provisions that constitute the overall SAAPI standard under the 2008 PBNDS and the 

2011 PBNDS. 

71According to ODPP officials, in March 2013 an ICE working group—composed of 

representatives from ERO, ODPP, and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 

among others—determined priority provisions within the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS. ICE 

considers these priority provisions to be of most critical importance within each detention 

standard based on significance to issues such as health and life safety, facility security, 

detainee rights, and quality of life in detention. See appendix VII for the SAAPI standard 

provisions ICE identified as priorities under the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS. ICE officials said 

that they may remove detainees from, or withhold payment to, a facility that fails to meet 

one of its priority standard provisions. These officials also said that ICE has not removed 

detainees or withheld payment based on SAAPI standard deficiencies.

ERO Inspections
Page 40 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

SAAPI standard provision

Meets 

standard

Does not 

meet 

standard

Not 

applicable

All records associated with claims of sexual abuse or assault are maintained, and such 

incidents are specifically logged and tracked by a designated staff coordinator.

104 0 4

When there is an alleged sexual assault, staff conduct a thorough investigation, gather 

and maintain evidence, and make referrals to appropriate law enforcement agencies for 

possible prosecution.

106 0 2

Victims of sexual abuse or assault are referred to specialized community resources for 

treatment and gathering of evidence.

106 1 1

PRIORITY: There is prompt and effective intervention when any detainee is sexually 

abused or assaulted and there are policy and procedures for required chain-of-command 

reporting.

106 1 1

PRIORITY: When there is an alleged or proven sexual assault, the required notifications 

to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), facility management, and the 

appropriate law enforcement agency are promptly made.

107 0 1

Applicable to all detention facilities and otherwise related to sexual abuse and assault

PRIORITY: All staff are trained, during orientation and in annual refresher training, in the 

prevention and intervention areas required by the SAAPI detention standard.

106 2 0

PRIORITY: Detainees are screened upon arrival for “high-risk” sexual assaultive and 

sexual victimization potential and housed and counseled accordingly. Detainees who are 

likely to become victims will be placed in the least restrictive housing that is available and 

appropriate.

106 2 0

PRIORITY: Detainees are informed about the program in facility orientation and the 

detainee handbook (or equivalent)

107 1 0

PRIORITY: The facility has a SAAPI program that includes, at a minimum:

• measures to prevent sexual abuse and sexual assault,

• Policy and procedures for required chain-of-command reporting to the highest facility 

official and the ICE field office director,

• measures for prompt and effective intervention to address the safety and treatment 

needs of detainee victims if an assault occurs, and

• investigation of incidents of sexual assault, and discipline assailants.

107 1 0

The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice is posted on all housing unit bulletin boards. 108 b 0 0

Source: GAO analysis of ERO inspection reports.

Notes: Inspectors assessed the two provisions applicable only to contract detention facilities and 

service processing centers at 9 of 63 and 35 of 63 intergovernmental service agreement facilities, 

respectively, and did not assess them at one contract detention facility. Inspectors did not assess a 

facility to not meet the same SAAPI provision more than once during this time frame. One inspection 

determined that the facility did not meet multiple provisions.

a

ICE’s Sexual Assault Awareness Information brochure contains information on sexual abuse and 

assault definitions, avoiding sexual assault, and what to do if assaulted, among other things.

b

The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice contains contact information for reporting sexual abuse and 

assault to a facility staff member, ICE officials, ICE’s Community and Detainee Helpline, and ICE’s 

Joint Intake Center.
Page 41 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

In addition, of the 2 facilities inspected under the 2011 SAAPI provisions, 

1 met all SAAPI provisions and 1 did not meet the overall SAAPI 

standard. ERO officials responsible for inspections explained that one 

way in which facilities do not meet an overall detention standard is if they 

do not meet three priority provisions within the standard.72 The facility that 

did not meet the overall SAAPI standard did not meet 12 of the 21 

applicable 2011 SAAPI provisions, including 6 priority provisions.73 (See 

app. VII for all 2011 SAAPI provisions.) Our review of ERO corrective 

action plans showed that corrective actions were taken at 9 of the 11 

facilities to address the SAAPI deficiencies the inspections identified in a 

manner consistent with ICE requirements.74

Our further review of 110 ERO inspection reports—108 assessing 

compliance with the 2008 SAAPI provisions and 2 with the 2011 SAAPI 

provisions—documenting performance at 39 facilities from fiscal years 

2010 through 2013 showed that some inspection teams did not assess all 

appropriate 2008 SAAPI standard provisions, providing inconsistent 

information for detention oversight. In these inspection reports, inspectors 

are to use a worksheet specific to either the 2008 PBNDS or the 2011 

PBNDS to document if a facility meets or does not meet each SAAPI 

standard provision, as well as if the provision does not apply to the 

ERO officials explained that 

they did not know why 1 facility did not take corrective actions within the 

required time frame to address these deficiencies, and that another 

facility did not do so because the facility and ERO determined that the 

2011 PBNDS were too onerous for the size of the facility, facility 

resources, and ICE population housed at the facility, and that ERO would 

conduct a 90-day follow-up inspection under the 2008 PBNDS.

 72In addition, according to ERO officials, inspectors may determine that a facility did not 

meet the overall SAAPI standard if the facility fails numerous nonpriority SAAPI 

provisions. 

73ERO conducted this inspection in February 2013 as a preoccupancy inspection, at 

which time there were no ICE detainees at the facility. Since that time, this facility has 

housed an average of 2 detainees daily.

74According to ERO officials, starting in December 2010, ERO required the relevant ERO 

field office to take and report corrective actions identified by ERO or ODO inspections 

within 5 days for a deficiency in a priority standard, or 55 days for other deficiencies.
Page 42 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

facility.75 (See app. VII for a comparison of the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS 

SAAPI inspection worksheets.) We found that inspectors did not assess 

or collect information for all the 2008 SAAPI provisions at facilities where 

no sexual abuse or assault allegations were made during the time period 

under review; rather, the inspectors recorded that these provisions did not 

apply. In particular, inspectors did not assess during 29 of 108 

inspections (27 percent) whether facilities met the provision to have 

sexual abuse statistics and reports readily available for review by 

inspectors and inspectors did not assess whether 4 facilities met the 

provision to maintain all records associated with claims of sexual abuse 

or assault. ERO officials said that inspectors should evaluate all SAAPI 

standard provisions at all inspected facilities, even if no sexual abuse or 

assault allegations were made; for example an inspector could still verify 

that the facility has a framework for tracking statistics, should allegations 

occur. ERO officials said that they orally communicated this expectation 

to the inspections contractor in March 2012.76

However, our review of inspections conducted after March 2012 found 

that inspectors continued to not assess or collect information for all 

applicable 2008 SAAPI standard provisions. Specifically, 4 of 43 

inspections conducted from March 2012 through September 2013 did not 

assess or collect information for all applicable 2008 SAAPI standard 

provisions, including the provision to have sexual abuse statistics and 

reports readily available for review by inspectors (2 of 4), among others. 

Contractor representatives responsible for inspection oversight stated that 

they may not have assessed all 2008 SAAPI provisions because of 

inspector error. ERO officials responsible for inspection oversight stated 

that ERO has processes in place to ensure that contracted inspectors 

consistently inspect all SAAPI provisions, such as ERO field office 

personnel reviewing inspection results and system controls that assign a 

detention standard rating based on checkmarks in each provision. 

However, these processes would not identify instances when inspectors 

 75These worksheets vary according to detention standards. For example, the 2008 SAAPI 

standard worksheet contains 13 provisions, and the 2011 SAAPI standard worksheet 

contains 22 standard provisions. In addition, the inspectors can include remarks for every 

provision, regardless of whether the provision met the standard, did not meet the 

standard, or was not applicable.

76That is, with the exception of two SAAPI provisions that apply only to service processing 

centers and contract detention facilities highlighted in table 9, which are unrelated to the 

inconsistency we observed. 
Page 43 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

inaccurately determined that a SAAPI provision did not apply, and thus 

did not assess or collect information about the facility’s ability to meet the 

provision. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government

states that management should ensure there are adequate means of 

obtaining information from external stakeholders, such as contracted 

inspectors, that may have a significant impact on the agency achieving its 

goals.77

ODO identified some deficiencies in facility compliance with ICE’s three 

sets of SAAPI standards during fiscal years 2010 through 2013.

Given that ERO performs the majority of SAAPI inspections 

under the 2008 PBNDS—27 of 29 in fiscal year 2013—incomplete 

assessment of these provisions can result in ERO having incomplete 

information about the extent to which facilities are prepared to maintain 

sexual abuse and assault allegation records, should such incidents occur. 

Developing a process to monitor the results of ERO inspections 

conducted under the 2008 SAAPI standard to ensure consistency across 

and completeness in how the inspections are performed, and addressing 

any inconsistencies, could help ensure that ERO management has 

complete information about relative SAAPI compliance across facilities.

78 In 

particular, ODO identified SAAPI deficiencies during 7 of 30 inspections 

(23 percent) at 28 facilities.79

 77

Similar to ERO inspection results, ODO 

inspection results identified deficiencies in priority provisions, such as the 

provision that staff be trained in required SAAPI areas (3 facilities). In 

addition, facilities did not meet SAAPI provisions to maintain separate 

general and investigative files for cases of sexual abuse or assault (2 

facilities), specify that chain-of-command reporting sexual abuse and 

assault allegations includes reporting to ICE (1 facility), or use a 

coordinated, multidisciplinary team approach to respond to sexual abuse 

(1 facility). ODO officials stated that they have not identified any trends 

among facilities with deficient SAAPI provisions. Our review of corrective 

action plans showed that corrective actions were taken at 6 of 7 facilities, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

78Our analysis included inspection reports available as of August 13, 2013. At that time, all 

but 3 inspection reports scheduled for fiscal year 2013 were available for our review. ODO 

inspectors do not use the inspection checklist ERO inspectors use or assess if a facility 

has overall met or not met a standard. Instead, ODO inspectors review the conditions at a 

facility against the SAAPI standard text to identify deficiencies. As a result, we did not 

quantify unmet components of the SAAPI standard found by ODO inspections.

79ODO performed 4 of these inspections under the 2008 PBNDS, 2 under the 2007 Family 

Residential Standards, and 1 under the 2011 PBNDS. 

ODO Inspections
Page 44 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

and that another facility had received an extension from ICE to do so as 

of September 2013.

ERO officials provided an example of one deficiency in facility compliance 

with ICE’s three sets of SAAPI provisions identified through DSM 

oversight, and ERO officials said their review of facility self-assessment 

results identified deficiencies in the SAAPI provisions at more than a third 

of facilities. In regard to the DSM program, ERO officials said they 

received weekly reports from DSMs who performed on-site oversight at 

approximately 50 facilities during fiscal years 2010 through 2013. ERO 

officials provided one example of a SAAPI-related deficiency identified 

through a DSM weekly report.

80 In this instance, a DSM determined that a 

facility was not in compliance with staff training requirements, including 

SAAPI-related requirements. In regard to the self-assessment program, 

ERO officials reported in September 2013 that they reviewed inspection 

results from the 93 facilities, which collectively housed less than 1 percent 

of ICE’s detainee population during fiscal years 2010 through 2012, and 

that the inspection results identified deficiencies in compliance with at 

least one SAAPI provision or with the overall SAAPI standard at 39 

facilities. The self-assessment program policy guidelines require that 

facilities include corrective action plans for any deficiencies that the 

facility did not correct at the time of the assessment in their results. 

According to ERO officials, the 39 facilities included corrective actions to 

address the SAAPI deficiencies they identified in their assessments, and 

as of September 2013, had completed or were in the process of 

implementing the actions.81

 80We did not independently review DSM weekly reports to determine the frequency with 

which DSMs identified SAAPI-related deficiencies.

81We did not review the self-assessment inspection results or corrective actions because 

ERO was in the process of collecting facility self-assessment results for the first year of 

the self-assessment program during our audit work.

DSMs and Self-assessments
Page 45 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

In August 2013, DOJ-certified auditors were to conduct audits of facilities 

subject to the DOJ PREA rule, including the 125 facilities that are under 

agreement with USMS and house ICE detainees.82 In particular, DOJ’s 

PREA rule requires that the agencies managing these facilities ensure 

that the facilities undergo triennial PREA audits, and that agencies 

publish final PREA audit reports on their websites, or make these reports 

otherwise publicly available.83 Following finalization of DOJ’s PREA rule, 

USMS added a question to its annual inspection checklist concerning the 

extent to which the facility is compliant with all applicable PREA 

standards. USMS officials responsible for prisoner operations explained 

that they plan to use results of these triennial PREA audit reports to 

determine facility compliance with PREA per the USMS annual inspection 

checklist.84 ERO officials responsible for detention oversight stated that 

as the DOJ PREA audits are fairly recent, they have not yet determined to 

what extent, if any, they will use the DOJ audit results to inform ICE’s 

oversight of SAAPI provisions at USMS facilities that house ICE 

detainees.

 82In addition to oversight performed by ICE and DOJ, the American Correctional 

Association is also to monitor select ICE facilities according to its own SAAPI detention 

standards for the purpose of providing facility accreditation. ICE officials stated that while 

the ICE detention standards were based on American Correctional Association standards, 

ICE does not request American Correctional Association inspection results because, as 

American Correctional Association officials told us, these results are considered 

proprietary. ICE officials further stated that ICE recognizes value in facilities maintaining 

American Correctional Association and other accreditations, but ICE standards are 

tailored to meet the unique needs of its immigrant population, and ICE relies on its own 

standards as the best measure of whether facilities are providing appropriate conditions of 

confinement. ERO performed SAAPI oversight at about half of these facilities (68 of 125) 

through inspections, self-assessments, or on-site monitoring through the DSM program. 

According to ERO officials, the remaining 57 facilities are inspected under the NDS, which 

do not include SAAPI provisions.

8328 C.F.R. §§ 115.401(a), 115.403(f). The DOJ PREA rule defines an agency as the unit 

of a state, local, corporate, or nonprofit authority, or of DOJ, with direct responsibility for 

the operation of any facility that confines inmates, detainees, or residents, including the 

implementation of policy as set by the governing, corporate, or nonprofit authority. See 28 

C.F.R. § 115.5.

84Prior to October 2012, USMS did not collect SAAPI-related information through its 

inspection process.

USMS Inspections
Page 46 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

ERO plans to increase oversight at some facilities and the use of selfassessments at other facilities, based on relative average daily detainee 

populations and success in past inspections, with an attendant benefit of 

potentially achieving cost savings for detention management. Moving 

forward, ERO officials said they plan to expand use of DSMs to an 

additional 22 facilities, targeting those facilities that house a relatively 

large proportion of ICE detainees.85 ERO officials responsible for the 

DSM program stated that DSMs directly contribute to ICE cost savings 

because, by better ensuring facility compliance with detention standards, 

they prevent ICE from potentially incurring future costs.86 According to 

ERO officials, in January 2013, ICE planned to increase its use of selfassessments at other facilities that have relatively low average daily 

populations, house detainees for more than 72 hours, and that passed 

ICE inspections in the past 2 years.87

 85As of August 2013, ERO officials said they have not decided in which facilities ERO will 

place these 22 DSMs, and thus could not determine how the additional DSMs would 

increase the average detainee daily population monitored by DSMs. 

ERO will assess compliance at 

these facilities biennially instead of annually, and these facilities will be 

required to complete self-assessments the year that ERO does not 

inspect them. For example, ERO officials stated that facilities eligible for 

biennial inspections in January 2013 will then complete a self-assessment 

in 2014. As of August 2013, in addition to the 93 facilities that completed 

annual self-assessments, ICE approved 36 facilities for biennial 

inspections. According to ERO officials responsible for oversight, ICE 

largely discontinued annual inspections at facilities that house detainees 

for less than 72 hours and implemented biennial inspections at other 

facilities in an effort to lower detention costs. In addition, officials 

explained that using self-assessments as an oversight mechanism is 

considered low risk because these facilities house detainees for a 

relatively short period of time.

86ERO officials responsible for the DSM program explained that these cost savings could 

be related to detention areas other than SAAPI. For example, a DSM that ensures a 

facility’s medical unit examines sick detainees on a timely basis could curtail future 

detainee health care costs. In addition, these officials stated that it would be difficult to 

estimate the extent to which DSM oversight has contributed to ICE cost savings because 

it is challenging to quantify the future costs DSMs have saved through their preventive 

actions. 

87Specifically, facilities selected for biennial inspections must house an average daily 

population of greater than10 detainees but fewer than 50 detainees for more than 72 

hours.

ICE Plans to Increase Onsite Monitoring at Select 

Facilities and Selfassessments at Others
Page 47 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Further changes to DHS oversight of SAAPI compliance at detention 

facilities may occur in the course of implementing DHS’s final PREA rule. 

For example, the DHS PREA notice of proposed rulemaking would 

provide for facility audits on a triennial cycle, in addition to ICE’s current 

annual and biennial inspection schedule.88 In addition, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking would require that ICE publish final inspection 

reports on its website, or make them otherwise readily available to the 

public.

ICE has taken action to strengthen sexual abuse and assault prevention 

and intervention at its detention facilities; however, some improvements 

could further strengthen ICE management of its detention program in this 

regard. For example, to assess and ensure the safety and security of 

detainees, it is important that ICE detention management programs have 

complete and accurate information with which to assess program results 

and take corrective action, as necessary. By developing and 

implementing additional internal controls to ensure reporting of sexual 

abuse and assault allegations by ERO field offices, ICE could better 

ensure the completeness of JICMS sexual abuse data and thereby 

strengthen these data’s usefulness for making detention management 

decisions and meeting program management goals. In addition, by 

clarifying guidance to help ensure that ICE and facility administrators 

correctly document investigations into sexual abuse and assault 

allegations, ICE could better ensure the completeness of facility files for 

SAAPI program management purposes and better position ICE and 

facility administrators to comply with the provisions of the DHS notice of 

proposed rulemaking. ICE also has opportunities to better ensure the 

quality of information available to its managers for SAAPI program 

planning and improve its oversight of existing SAAPI provisions. In 

particular, by documenting and maintaining reliable information on the 

detention standards cited in facilities’ contracts and agreements, as well 

as recording any agreements by facilities to undergo inspection under 

more rigorous standards, ICE could better ensure that ICE officials, 

facility administrators, and other stakeholders have a reliable and 

consistent understanding of facility detention standards and plan for the 

resources and time necessary to implement DHS’s PREA notice of 

 88DHS may expedite inspection in the event that it believes that a particular facility may be 

experiencing sexual abuse and assault problems. 

Conclusions
Page 48 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

proposed rulemaking. In addition, developing a process to monitor the 

results of ERO inspections conducted under the 2008 SAAPI standard to 

ensure consistency across and completeness in how the inspections are 

performed, and addressing any inconsistencies, could help ensure that 

ERO management has complete information about relative and actual 

SAAPI compliance across facilities. Further, OIG and ERO coordination 

to ensure that the OIG has access to OIG hotline connectivity data, could 

better ensure that the OIG has information it needs to identify and 

address any technical issues detainees face in trying to reaching the 

hotline.

To ensure that ICE has complete and accurate information needed for 

SAAPI program decision making and planning, we recommend that the 

Director of ICE take the following four actions:

• develop and implement additional internal controls to ensure ERO 

field offices’ reporting of allegations of sexual abuse and assault to the 

Joint Intake Center;

• clarify guidance for ICE and facility administrators on how to correctly 

document investigations into sexual abuse and assault allegations;

• document and maintain reliable information on the detention 

standards cited in facilities’ contracts and agreements, and record any 

agreements by facilities to undergo inspection under more rigorous 

standards; and

• develop a process to monitor the results of ERO annual inspections 

conducted under the 2008 SAAPI standard to ensure consistency 

across the inspections and completeness in how the inspections are 

performed, and address any inconsistencies.

In addition, to ensure that the DHS OIG has information for identifying 

and addressing any technical problems detainees face in reaching the 

OIG hotline, we recommend that the Director of ICE and the DHS Deputy 

Inspector General coordinate OIG access to OIG hotline connectivity 

data.

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOJ for their review and 

comment. DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in 

appendix VIII, and DOJ did not provide written comments. In its 

comments, DHS concurred with the five recommendations and described 

actions under way or planned to address them by April 30, 2014. DHS 

and DOJ provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 49 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

With regard to the first recommendation, that ICE develop and implement 

additional internal controls to ensure field offices’ reporting of sexual 

abuse and assault allegations to the Joint Intake Center, DHS concurred 

and stated that ICE has taken action, and plans to take additional action, 

to better ensure ERO field offices’ reporting of such allegations. 

Specifically, DHS stated that ICE issued a directive and developed 

guidance and training materials to enhance field office reporting of sexual 

abuse and assault allegations, as discussed in our report, and would take 

further steps to issue supplemental guidance. Further, DHS noted that 

ODO compares system data with field office records during visits, which it 

completes at a sample of facilities, to assess compliance with reporting 

requirements, and stated that future ICE quarterly reports to agency 

leadership will include any identified reporting discrepancies. These 

actions to educate and train staff and inform agency leadership of 

compliance with reporting requirements are positive steps, but to be fully 

responsive to the intent of our recommendation, we encourage DHS to 

develop and implement additional controls to assess compliance with 

reporting requirements across detention facilities, such as additional 

controls to help better ensure that ERO field office officials are reporting 

sexual abuse and assault allegations in accordance with ICE's directive. 

In addition, DHS noted that ERO field office officials at facilities we visited 

had reported two of the three allegations we reported as missing from ICE 

headquarters’ information system; however, in its technical comments,

DHS clarified that officials did not report these two allegations in 

accordance with protocols established in ICE’s directive. We updated our 

final report to include this information.

With regard to the second recommendation, that ICE clarify guidance on 

how to correctly document investigations into sexual abuse and assault 

allegations, DHS concurred and noted the importance of completely 

documenting investigations of sexual abuse and assault allegations and 

described actions that ICE has taken and plans to take to clarify these 

requirements. Specifically, DHS stated that ICE plans to issue a 

broadcast message to all field offices providing detailed guidance to be 

disseminated and posted in all facilities. The department also noted that 

the facility files we reviewed included files for cases that originated in 

fiscal years 2010 through 2012, and that the number of facilities that have 

adopted detention standards that articulate specific requirements for 

facilities to maintain investigative files for sexual abuse allegations—the 

2007 Residential Standards, 2008 PBNDS, and 2011 PBNDS—have 

increased since that time. However, as described in the report, while 

additional facilities may have moved to adopt these detention standards, 

four of the eight facilities at which we identified deficiencies in the 
Page 50 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

investigative files were already governed by these standards at the time 

the allegations associated with the files were made. Accordingly, if fully 

implemented, ICE’s planned action to distribute detailed guidance should 

help address the intent of the recommendation to better ensure the 

completeness of facility investigative files. 

With regard to the third recommendation, that ICE document and 

maintain reliable information on the detention standards cited in facilities’ 

contracts and agreements, DHS concurred and cited action it was taking 

to document and maintain reliable information, and record any 

agreements by facilities to undergo inspection under more rigorous 

standards. While DHS noted that deficiencies in record keeping did not 

affect ICE’s efforts to safeguard detainees, DHS stated that it recognized 

the importance of thorough record keeping and that it is in the process of 

modifying its Facility Performance Management System to report data on 

both the standards that contractually govern a facility and the standards 

that a facility has voluntarily agreed to adopt for inspection purposes, and 

that ERO and OAQ will jointly review this list on a quarterly basis to 

ensure information on both categories is current and accurate. If fully 

implemented, these actions should address the intent of the 

recommendation and better position ICE headquarters officials, ERO field 

office officials, facility administrators, and other stakeholders to have a 

reliable and consistent understanding of applicable facility detention 

standards.

With regard to the fourth recommendation, that ICE develop a process to 

monitor the results of ERO annual inspections conducted under the 2008 

SAAPI standard, DHS concurred and stated that the department will 

make every effort to ensure utilization of a uniform inspections protocol, 

including action to clarify expectations with inspectors and conduct 

monthly meetings with the inspection contractor to reinforce expectations. 

To assess the extent to which the contractor meets these expectations 

and to meet the intent of the recommendation, we encourage 

departmental efforts to develop a process to monitor the results of facility 

inspections and address any inconsistencies in how inspections are 

performed. 

With regard to the fifth recommendation, that ICE and the DHS OIG 

coordinate access to hotline connectively data, DHS concurred and 

stated that the Director of ICE would immediately begin to provide the 

DHS Deputy Inspector General with information on OIG hotline 

connectivity exceptions, as appropriate. If implemented as planned, this 

action should help address the intent of the recommendation to ensure 
Page 51 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

that the DHS OIG has information for identifying and addressing any 

technical problems detainees face in reporting sexual abuse allegations.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney 

General of the United States, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at 

(202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix IX.

Rebecca Gambler

Director

Homeland Security and Justice
Page 52 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

List of Requesters

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Honorable Robert Brady

The Honorable Judy Chu

The Honorable Yvette Clarke

The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez

The Honorable Janice Hahn

The Honorable Alcee Hastings

The Honorable Michael Honda

The Honorable Barbara Lee

The Honorable John Lewis

The Honorable Carolyn Maloney

The Honorable George Miller

The Honorable Gwen Moore

The Honorable James Moran

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton

The Honorable Jared Polis

The Honorable Mike Quigley

The Honorable Charles Rangel

The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez

The Honorable Jose Serrano

The Honorable Nydia Velazquez

The Honorable Henry Waxman

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

This report addresses the following three questions:

(1) What do Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data show about 

sexual abuse and assault in immigration detention facilities, and how are 

these data used for detention management?

(2) To what extent has DHS included provisions for addressing sexual 

abuse and assault in its immigration detention standards?

(3) To what extent has DHS assessed facility administrator compliance 

with these provisions and what were the results of DHS’s assessments?

For this report, we assessed DHS’s efforts to mitigate sexual abuse and 

assault in immigration detention facilities that house U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees. DHS defines an immigration 

detention facility as a confinement facility operated by or affiliated with 

ICE that routinely holds persons for over 24 hours. We did not include 

other types of facilities, such as holding facilities and prisons that 

temporarily house detainees waiting for ICE transfer to detention facilities. 

We also excluded the three federal prisons where ICE has detention bed 

space because two house few detainees and use of the third prison for 

detention was to be discontinued by the end of calendar year 2013, 

according to Bureau of Prisons and ICE officials. We also did not include 

facilities for juveniles that are regulated by the Department of Health and 

Human Services.

To address our questions, we visited a nonprobability sample of 10 

detention facilities in California, Florida, Texas, and Washington. We 

selected these facilities based on a mix of factors, such as differences in 

geographical location, detainee population, facility type, detention 

standards governing the facility, length of time the facility may hold 

detainees, and recommendations made by DHS and organizations that 

work with immigration detainees.

1

 1

We did not use the number of sexual abuse allegations at a facility as part of our 

selection criteria because a high number of allegations could represent either (1) an 

increased risk of abuse to detainees or (2) increased reporting at a facility. 

We collected and reviewed 

investigative files for all 70 sexual abuse and assault allegations occurring 

from fiscal years 2010 through fiscal year 2012 maintained at the 10 

facilities we visited and assessed their completeness and the extent to 

which they are useful for detention management against ICE 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

requirements and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government.

2 Of these files, we selected investigative files for a 

nonprobability sample of 15 allegations for more in-depth analysis, to 

include allegations from each facility and allegations against staff 

members and allegations against detainees. The results of our more indepth analysis are not generalizable to all investigative files, but provided 

helpful insights into investigative file completeness. We interviewed ICE 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) field office officials, ERO 

detention service managers (DSM), facility administrators, and medical 

personnel regarding sexual abuse and assault prevention and 

intervention (SAAPI) policies and procedures in place at the facility. We 

also interviewed 18 guards at 9 of these facilities to understand how 

these policies and procedures are practiced.3 Moreover, we interviewed a 

nonprobability sample of 53 detainees to gain an understanding of 

detainees’ knowledge of policies relevant to SAAPI, such as how to report 

sexual abuse or assault. We selected approximately 6 detainees from 

each of the 9 facilities.4

 2

We selected detainees based on gender, age, 

country of origin, and number of days in ICE custody. Detainees speak 

various languages, and some detainees are not proficient in English. 

Toward including such detainees in our sample, we interviewed 19 

detainees at 5 facilities in Spanish, but did not interview detainees who 

were not proficient in English or Spanish. In addition, we conducted 

physical observations to observe facility implementation of SAAPI 

provisions, such as posting required information. The information we 

obtained from our facility visits cannot be generalized to all facilities, 

guards, or detainees but offers insight into the overall range of SAAPI 

implementation across detention facilities. In advance of each site visit, 

we interviewed a local immigrant advocacy organization to gain its 

perspective on ICE’s efforts to prevent and respond to sexual abuse and 

assault at the facility and the extent to which sexual abuse and assault in 

detention may be over- or underreported and why. We identified these 

local organizations through recommendations provided by two national 

advocacy organizations—the American Civil Liberties Union and the 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

3

When possible, we selected the guards to include one female and one male guard at 

each facility. Guards at one facility elected not to speak with us at the recommendation of 

their union, which was concerned that information guards shared with us could be used by 

facility management to negatively assess guard performance. 

4

The 10th facility did not have any detainees in its custody during our visit.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

National Immigrant Justice Center. In instances when the national 

organizations suggested that we speak with more than one local 

organization, we invited representatives from all of the local organizations 

to meet with us. While not generalizable, this sample of organizations

provided us with helpful insights into the perspectives of local advocacy 

organizations.

To determine what DHS data show about sexual abuse and assault in 

detention facilities and how they are used for detention management, we 

reviewed closing reports summarizing the allegation and investigative 

steps and outcomes for all 215 sexual abuse and assault allegations 

reported to ICE from October 2009 through March 2013 and tracked in 

ICE Office of Professional Responsibility’s (OPR) Joint Integrity Case 

Management System (JICMS)—the primary system ICE uses to track 

sexual assault and abuse allegations.5

 5

We selected October 2009 because, according to ICE officials, data prior to fiscal year 

2010 do not include sexual abuse and assault allegations against detainees. According to 

ICE OPR, it did not collect this information in JICMS prior to fiscal year 2010 because the 

office was focused on employee and contractor misconduct, in accordance with its 

mission. We selected March 2013 because OPR had completed most investigations into 

allegations made through then at the time of our review.

We analyzed this information to 

determine the characteristics of these allegations and how they were 

reported. We also met with agency officials from ICE offices and other 

DHS components with responsibilities related to collecting and using data 

on sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities including (1) ICE OPR, 

which tracks and investigates sexual abuse allegations; (2) ICE Office of 

Detention Policy and Planning (ODPP), which develops policies and 

standards to address sexual abuse in detention facilities; (3) the DHS 

Office of Inspector General (OIG), which investigates misconduct 

involving DHS and contractor employees and operates a hotline through 

which detainees can report complaints regarding misconduct in detention 

facilities, including sexual abuse and assault; and (4) the DHS Office for 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which is responsible for identifying policy 

gaps that can contribute to sexual abuse. To assess the reliability of the 

JICMS data, we compared the allegations contained in JICMS, which 

according to ICE officials, is to include all reported sexual abuse and 

assault allegations, with information from other sources, including 

allegations documented by the 10 facilities we visited. Further, we 

interviewed knowledgeable OPR officials about the completeness and 

reliability of JICMS data and controls in place for these data, and 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

assessed our findings against ICE requirements and Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government.

6 We determined that the data 

within JICMS were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of presenting the 

type and outcome of sexual abuse and assault allegations in JICMS, but 

we found limitations with the information about the number of reported 

sexual abuse allegations, which we discuss in the report. To assess 

barriers to detainees reporting sexual abuse, we interviewed 

knowledgeable ICE officials regarding the extent to which sexual abuse 

may be over- or underreported, and reviewed relevant documentation 

from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics. We 

also conducted limited testing of reporting mechanisms at each of the 

facilities we visited by placing calls to ICE hotlines from 19 telephones in 

detainee housing areas at 10 facilities, among other things. We generally 

tested a telephone in two living area pods at each facility we visited by 

dialing the OIG hotline, ICE Community and Detainee Helpline, and the 

ICE Joint Intake Center hotline. In addition, we collected and analyzed 

telephone connectivity data from ERO to determine the extent to which 

detainee calls placed to the OIG hotline from fiscal years 2010 through 

2012 using ICE’s telephone contractor or its pro bono telephone platform 

were successfully connected.7 We also interviewed ERO and OIG 

officials about how they use these data and assessed our findings against 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.8

 6

We assessed 

the reliability of these data by interviewing ERO officials and contractor 

personnel familiar with the processes used to collect, record, and analyze 

the data, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of our report. We identified and analyzed DHS and ICE policies 

related to sexual abuse and assault reporting requirements and plans for 

using sexual abuse data for detention management. Finally, we assessed 

the completeness of documentation in 15 sexual abuse and assault 

investigative files maintained at the 10 facilities we visited against ICE 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

7

ERO officials explained that ICE contracts with one telephone company to provide full 

telephone service for detainees at 18 of its 251 detention facilities. In addition, about 191 

ICE intergovernmental service agreement facilities use this telephone company’s 

nationwide pro bono platform, which enables detainees to place calls at no charge to 

certain numbers, including the OIG hotline, among others.

8

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 57 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

requirements and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government.

9

To determine the extent to which DHS detention standards include SAAPI 

provisions, we reviewed sexual abuse and assault standards and policies 

developed by ICE’s ODPP, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, and ICE 

Health Service Corps currently applicable to, or proposed for, ICE 

detention facilities. In particular, to establish the relative protections these 

standards afford detainees, we compared the

• 2000 National Detention Standards (NDS),

• 2007 Family Residential Standards,

• 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS),

• 2011 PBNDS, and

• DHS’s notice of proposed rulemaking on the Prison Rape and 

Elimination Act (PREA).10

Moreover, we compared DHS’s 2011 PBNDS and PREA notice of 

proposed rulemaking with recommendations for immigration detention 

centers that the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) 

made in 2009, and interviewed seven of eight former NPREC members to 

obtain their perspectives on how the extent to which DHS incorporated 

NPREC’s recommendations will affect the effectiveness of DHS’s SAAPI 

efforts.11 We also interviewed DHS Office of the Principal Legal Advisor

and ODPP officials about the department’s reasons for incorporating or 

not incorporating particular NPREC recommendations in the 2011 

PBNDS.12

 9

In addition, we interviewed representatives from national 

organizations and associations involved in immigration detention 

advocacy to obtain their perspectives on DHS’s PREA notice of proposed 

rulemaking. In particular, we spoke with the American Civil Liberties 

Union, American Bar Association, National Immigrant Justice Center, and 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

10Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in 

Confinement Facilities, 77 Fed. Reg. 75,300 (Dec. 19, 2012).

11The other commissioner was not available for comment. 

12We did not interview DHS officials about the reasons for incorporating or not 

incorporating particular NPREC recommendations in DHS’s proposed PREA rule because 

it is in proposed form and subject to change based on public comments received by the 

department. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 58 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Just Detention International. We selected these organizations and 

associations based on their involvement with SAAPI-related immigration 

detention issues and contributions to the development of national 

detention standards. While not generalizable, this sample provided us 

with helpful insights into the perspectives of national advocacy 

organizations. In addition, we compared DHS’s PREA notice of proposed 

rulemaking and DOJ’s final PREA rule to determine differences, if any, in 

sexual abuse and assault provisions they include. To determine which 

sexual abuse and assault standards ICE requires facilities to implement, 

we requested fiscal year 2013 information from ERO and the ICE Office 

of Acquisition Management (OAQ) concerning the detention standards 

cited in facilities’ contracts or agreements with ICE. We assessed the 

reliability of the ERO and OAQ detention standards data by reviewing the 

contracts and agreements on which the information was based for a 

nonprobability sample of 20 facilities, and interviewing ERO and OAQ 

officials about discrepancies in the data.13 We assessed ERO’s and 

OAQ’s maintenance of information on the standards cited in facilities’

contracts and agreements against Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government.

14

To determine the extent to which DHS assessed facility compliance with 

SAAPI provisions, as well as the results of these assessments, we 

reviewed oversight mechanisms utilized at ICE’s detention facilities from 

fiscal years 2010 through 2013. In particular, we compared oversight 

mechanisms in place through (1) ERO annual facility inspections, (2) 

ERO’s DSM program, (3) ERO’s Operational Review Self-Assessment 

process, and (4) OPR Office of Detention Oversight’s (ODO) risk-based 

We determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for the purpose of presenting trends in the standards to which 

different types of facilities are to adhere, but we found limitations with the 

data the detention standards cited in facilities’ contracts and agreements, 

which we discuss in the report. Finally, we interviewed relevant DHS 

officials regarding their approach to implementing the 2011 PBNDS and 

PREA notice of proposed rulemaking across facilities and any associated 

challenges.

 13We selected this sample to include (1) facilities at which we conducted site visits and (2) 

facilities for which ERO and OAQ information on facility standards differed. While not 

generalizable, this sample provided us with helpful insights into the reliability of ERO and 

OAQ’s information on facility standards.

14GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 59 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

facility inspections and assessed the extent to which these mechanisms 

where used at ICE’s 251 authorized facilities. In addition, we reviewed the 

results of the 110 ERO and 30 ODO facility inspection reports that 

assessed compliance with SAAPI standards during fiscal years 2010 

through 2013.15 We analyzed information in these reports to assess the 

extent to which inspectors found deficiencies in the SAAPI standards, 

associated corrective actions, and any patterns across reports. In 

addition, we assessed the consistency of the SAAPI inspections with 

standards in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

16

We also interviewed ERO and ODO officials responsible for inspections 

and the DSM program; officials from the entity that ERO currently 

contracts with to complete its inspections; DSMs, ICE officials, and 

administrators responsible for on-site oversight at the facilities we visited; 

ERO officials responsible for reviewing results from facility selfassessments; and U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) officials responsible for 

assessing compliance with DOJ standards at the facilities with which 

USMS has agreements that house ICE detainees about the oversight 

they perform.17

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through

November 2013, in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Moreover, we collected information on ICE’s plans for 

future oversight and DHS’s notice of proposed rulemaking to assess the 

extent to which they will change ICE’s SAAPI oversight efforts.

 15We chose this time frame because prior to fiscal year 2010, the scope of ICE’s 

inspections of the SAAPI standard was limited to 2 of its 251 facilities. Because the 2000 

NDS do not include a SAAPI standard, we reviewed reports inspecting the 2007 

Residential Standards, 2008 PBNDS, or 2011 PBNDS. In addition, our analysis included 

inspection reports available as of August 2013. At that time, all but 2 ERO and 3 ODO 

inspection reports scheduled for fiscal year 2013 were available for our review.

16GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

17From fiscal years 2011 through 2013, ERO contracted with the Nakamoto Group to 

conduct its annual detention standards inspections.
Appendix II: Summary of Substantiated Sexual 

Abuse and Assault Allegations, October 2009 

through March 2013

Page 60 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Our analysis of ICE JICMS data showed 15 substantiated allegations of 

sexual abuse and assault in ICE detention facilities from October 2009 

through March 2013. The 15 substantiated sexual abuse and assault 

cases had several similar underlying factors. In particular, 4 of these 

cases included situations where the detainee was alone with a guard—

such as in protective custody or transport—and 3 cases involved 

transgender victims. In addition, 4 cases included a perpetrator who did 

not understand the zero-tolerance sexual abuse policy. In 4 of the 15 

substantiated cases, a guard sexually abused a detainee, whereas in the 

remaining 11 cases, a detainee sexually abused a detainee. Table 10 

summarizes these substantiated allegations and identifies characteristics 

that were similar across multiple cases.

Table 10: Substantiated Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Assault in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Facilities, October 2009 through March 2013

Allegation summary Type of facility a Outcomes

Similarities across 

cases

Staff-on-detainee allegations

A transgender detainee was sexually assaulted by a 

male guard while in protective housing (December 2010).

Dedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

The guard was 

prosecuted by the local 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

(USAO). 

• Transgender

victim.

• Victim housed in 

protective custody.

• Staff member 

alone with 

detainee.

• Perpetrator 

admitted to abuse.

A female guard attempted sexual intercourse with a male 

detainee (November 2012).

Service processing 

center

Criminal prosecution 

was declined by the 

local USAO. 

• Staff member 

alone with 

detainee.

• Perpetrator 

admitted to abuse.

A male guard took a female detainee out of the vehicle 

during transport to an airport, conducted a pat-down 

search, and asked her to raise her shirt. When the 

detainee refused, the guard propositioned her for sexual 

intercourse. The detainee refused and they proceeded to 

the airport. During an investigation, an additional nine 

female detainees reported that this male guard had 

sexually assaulted them during transport (December 

2009 to May 2010).

Dedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

The guard was 

prosecuted and indicted 

by the local USAO. 

• Staff member 

alone with 

detainee.

• Perpetrator

admitted to abuse.

Appendix II: Summary of Substantiated 

Sexual Abuse and Assault Allegations, 

October 2009 through March 2013
Appendix II: Summary of Substantiated Sexual 

Abuse and Assault Allegations, October 2009 

through March 2013

Page 61 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Allegation summary Type of facility a Outcomes

Similarities across 

cases

A male guard intimidated and coerced a transgender 

detainee assigned to protective custody to display the 

detainee’s breasts and then the guard inappropriately 

touched himself in view of the detainee (December 

2009).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

The guard was 

prosecuted in state 

court. 

• Transgender 

victim.

• Victim housed in 

protective custody.

• Staff member 

alone with 

detainee.

• Perpetrator 

admitted to abuse.

Detainee-on-detainee allegations

A male detainee was sexually assaulted by another male 

detainee. The assault included repeated sexual requests, 

among other things (February to March 2010).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

The local law 

enforcement agency did 

not pursue an

investigation because 

the alleged perpetrator 

was scheduled for 

deportation 1 week 

after the allegation. 

• Victim housed in 

protective custody.

A male detainee repeatedly hit another detainee in the 

face with his genitalia (September 2010).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

The perpetrator was 

tried for sexual 

misconduct and 

ordered to pay a fine. 

• Transgender 

victim.

A male detainee touched another detainee’s genitalia on 

several occasions (March 2013).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

The local district 

attorney did not pursue 

prosecution because 

the victim did not want 

to press charges. 

• Perpetrator did not 

understand zerotolerance sexual 

abuse and assault 

policy.

• Perpetrator 

admitted to abuse.

A male detainee grabbed two other males’ buttocks 

(January 2013).

Contract detention 

facility

The local law 

enforcement agency did 

not file criminal 

charges. 

• Perpetrator 

admitted to abuse.

A male detainee grabbed another male detainee by his 

genitalia (September 2011). 

Contract detention 

facility

Criminal prosecution 

was declined by the 

local USAO. 

• Perpetrator did not 

understand zerotolerance sexual 

abuse and assault 

policy.

• Perpetrator 

admitted to abuse.

A male detainee grabbed another male detainee’s 

genitalia (March 2013).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

Local law enforcement 

declined to investigate 

because the victim did 

not want to press 

charges. 

• None.
Appendix II: Summary of Substantiated Sexual 

Abuse and Assault Allegations, October 2009 

through March 2013

Page 62 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Allegation summary Type of facility a Outcomes

Similarities across 

cases

A male detainee reported that other male detainees 

touched him, and an investigation indicated that there 

was inappropriate touching among ICE detainees, but 

that there was no oral sex or penetration (November 

2012).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

None of the individuals 

involved wanted to file 

or sign a formal 

complaint regarding the 

incident.

• Perpetrators 

admitted to abuse.

A male detainee pressed his genitalia against another 

male detainee (January 2013).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

The local district 

attorney declined 

prosecution because of 

a lack of evidence.

• Perpetrator 

admitted to abuse.

A male detainee grabbed another male detainee’s chest 

and buttocks (February 2013).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

Local law enforcement 

declined to investigate 

because the victim did 

not want to press 

charges.

• Perpetrator 

admitted to abuse.

A female detainee grabbed another female detainee’s 

buttocks (June 2012).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

Local law enforcement 

declined to investigate 

because of the minor 

level of contact.

• Perpetrator did not 

understand zerotolerance sexual 

abuse and assault 

policy.

A male detainee repeatedly requested oral sex from 

another male detainee (February 2013).

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

The perpetrator was 

transferred before a 

disciplinary hearing 

could take place.

• None.

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information.

a

.

Dates presented in this column reflect when the alleged abuse occurred or, if that date was not 

available, when the allegation was reported to ICE headquarters.
Appendix III: Process for Reporting and 

Investigating Sexual Abuse and Assault 

Allegations

Page 63 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

DHS ICE provides detainees with multiple methods to report sexual 

abuse and assault in detention facilities and oversees a multilayered 

investigation process. As shown in figure 3, detainees can report sexual 

abuse and assault allegations either locally at facilities in which they are 

housed or to DHS headquarters hotlines. Regardless of how detainees 

report abuse, DHS components are to forward these allegations to the 

Joint Intake Center to be routed for investigation. Local law enforcement 

and various DHS investigative entities including the OIG and ICE OPR 

conduct investigations into sexual abuse allegations. These investigations 

determine whether the alleged incident occurred and can lead to 

prosecution of alleged perpetrators.

Appendix III: Process for Reporting and 

Investigating Sexual Abuse and Assault 

Allegations
Appendix III: Process for Reporting and 

Investigating Sexual Abuse and Assault 

Allegations

Page 64 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Figure 3: Process for Reporting and Investigating Sexual Abuse Allegations in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Facilities

a

According to ICE officials, facility staff receive training on signs of sexual abuse and assault and may 

be able to detect abuse even if a detainee or third party does not report it.
Appendix III: Process for Reporting and 

Investigating Sexual Abuse and Assault 

Allegations

Page 65 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

b

According to Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties officials, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties first refers allegations it receives to the OIG. If the OIG declines to investigate the allegation, 

the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties investigates the allegation or refers it to the ICE 

Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator, who then refers it to the Joint Intake Center.

c

When the Joint Intake Center receives staff-on-detainee allegations from ICE entities, it first refers 

them to the DHS OIG. If the DHS OIG declines to investigate the allegations, the Joint Intake Center 

refers them to OPR.
Appendix IV: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Prevention and Intervention Included 

in Immigration Detention Standards

Page 66 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Table 11 provides a summary comparing SAAPI provisions included in 

ICE’S detention standards that apply across immigration detention 

facilities. These standards include the 2000 NDS, 2008 PBNDS, and 

2011 PBNDS.

Table 11: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) in U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards 

Topical area 

2000 National 

Detention Standards 

(NDS) provisions

2008 Performance-Based National 

Detention Standards (PBNDS) 

provisions

Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond 

those in 2008 PBNDS

Definitions None related to SAAPI Define detainee-on-detainee and staff-ondetainee sexual abuse or assault.Expand definition of detainee-on-detainee 

sexual abuse or assault to include 

attempted sexually abusive contact. 

Expand definition of staff-on-detainee 

sexual abuse or assault to include repeated 

verbal statements or comments of a sexual 

nature to a detainee, including demeaning 

references to gender, derogatory 

comments about body or clothing, or 

profane or obscene language or gestures.

Prohibitions Prohibit sexual assault, 

engaging in sexual 

acts, and making 

sexual proposals and 

threats

State that sexual conduct between 

detainees and staff, volunteers, or contract 

personnel—regardless of consensual 

status—is prohibited; and subject to 

administrative, disciplinary, and criminal 

sanctions.

Similar to the provisions in the 2008 SAAPI 

standard.

Written policies 

and procedures 

None for SAAPI Require facility administrators to have 

written SAAPI policies and procedures.

Require written SAAPI policies and 

procedures to include additional 

components, such as a statement of a 

zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual 

abuse or assault.

Program 

coordination

None for SAAPI Require service processing centers and 

contract detention facilities to designate a 

SAAPI coordinator to, among other things, 

coordinate the gathering of reports on 

incidents of sexual abuse or assault.

Require all facilities that house detainees 

for more than 72 hours, including 

intergovernmental service agreement 

facilities, to designate a SAAPI coordinator.

Staff training None specific to SAAPI Require facilities to provide training on 

certain topics relating to sexual abuse and 

assault for employees, volunteers, and 

contract personnel.

Modify 2008 requirements to specify that 

the level and type of training for volunteers 

and contractors will be based on the 

services they provide and their level of 

contact with detainees, requires training on 

working with vulnerable populations, and 

requires facilities to maintain 

documentation to verify training. 

Appendix IV: Provisions for Sexual Abuse 

and Assault Prevention and Intervention 

Included in Immigration Detention Standards
Appendix IV: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Prevention and Intervention Included 

in Immigration Detention Standards

Page 67 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Topical area 

2000 National 

Detention Standards 

(NDS) provisions

2008 Performance-Based National 

Detention Standards (PBNDS) 

provisions

Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond 

those in 2008 PBNDS

Detainee 

notification, 

orientation, and 

instruction

None related to SAAPI Require facilities to provide detainees with 

information on their SAAPI programs. 

Facility must provide detainees an option to 

report a sexual incident or situation to a 

designated staff member other than an 

immediate point-of-contact line officer and 

post sexual assault awareness information. 

Require that facilities provide detainees 

with information on additional topics and 

document detainee participation in the 

instruction session, post the name of the 

SAAPI program coordinator or designated 

staff member and local organizations that 

can assist detainee victims, and take 

additional steps to strengthen language 

assistance for limited English proficient and 

illiterate detainees.

Prevention None specific to 

SAAPI, but require 

facilities to prevent 

abuse through housing 

assignments that 

reduce low-threat 

detainees’ exposure to 

danger

Assign staff and detainees responsibility for 

being alert for and reporting signs of 

potential situations in which sexual assault 

might occur. Facility must work to prevent 

abuse through detainee admission and 

housing assignments. In particular, 

detainees must be screened upon arrival 

for risk of sexual victimization or 

abusiveness, and monitored and counseled 

accordingly. Detainees considered likely to 

become victims must be placed in the least 

restrictive housing that is available and 

appropriate.

Specify that a detainee who is subjected to 

sexual abuse or assault shall not be 

returned to general population until proper 

reclassification, taking into consideration 

any increased vulnerability of the detainee 

as a result of the sexual abuse or assault, 

is completed.

Prompt and 

effective 

intervention

None specific to 

SAAPI, but require that 

facilities have a 

process for responding 

to detainee grievances

Require that staff take seriously all 

statements from detainees claiming to be

victims of sexual assaults, offer alleged 

victims immediate protection from the 

assailant, refer the alleged victim for a 

medical examination, and follow all 

reporting requirements.

Require that facilities use a coordinated, 

multidisciplinary team approach to respond 

to sexual abuse that includes a medical 

practitioner, a mental health practitioner, a 

security staff member and an investigator 

from the assigned investigative entity, as 

well as representatives from outside 

entities that provide relevant services and 

expertise. Further require that care is taken 

to place the detainee in a supportive 

environment that represents the least 

restrictive housing option possible.

Reporting, 

notifications, and 

confidentiality

Require officers to 

document prohibited 

acts, which include 

sexual assault, that 

they witness or suspect 

Emphasize importance of timely reporting 

of all sexual abuse and assault incidents 

and allegations, and outline specific 

reporting avenues for different types of 

assault incidents. Require confidentiality 

measures to limit information about the 

alleged victims to those who have a need 

to know.

Require that staff suspected of perpetrating 

abuse be removed from all duties requiring 

detainee contact pending the outcome of 

an investigation. 
Appendix IV: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Prevention and Intervention Included 

in Immigration Detention Standards

Page 68 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Topical area 

2000 National 

Detention Standards 

(NDS) provisions

2008 Performance-Based National 

Detention Standards (PBNDS) 

provisions

Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond 

those in 2008 PBNDS

Investigation and 

prosecution

Require facilities to 

develop a process for 

investigating detainee 

grievances, including 

allegations, but do not 

specifically address 

sexual abuse or 

assault investigations

Stipulate that a sensitive and coordinated 

response is necessary when a detainee 

alleges sexual abuse or assault, and that 

all allegations are promptly and effectively 

investigated. Require that staff preserve 

the crime scene, when possible, and 

arrange for the victim to undergo a forensic 

medical examination, based on factors 

such as availability of in-house expertise 

and security considerations.

Require that all investigations into alleged 

sexual assault be prompt, thorough, 

objective, and conducted by trained 

investigators. In addition, the facility 

administrator must arrange for the victim to 

undergo an off-site forensic medical 

examination in all cases, rather than based 

on such factors as availability of in-house 

expertise and general security 

considerations. Also require the facility 

SAAPI coordinator to review the results of 

every investigation of sexual abuse to 

assess and improve prevention and 

response efforts.

Health care 

services and 

transfer of 

detainees to 

hospitals or other 

facilities

Require that facilities 

provide detainees with 

emergency medical 

care, but do not 

specifically address 

treatment for sexual 

abuse or assault 

victims 

Require that victims of sexual assault must 

be referred to a community facility for 

treatment and gathering of evidence, when 

possible. If care is provided in-house, 

requires that health care professionals take 

particular steps (e.g., offer victims 

prophylactic treatment, as appropriate).

Specify that if a victim is treated by a 

community facility, prophylactic treatment, 

emergency contraception, and follow-up 

examinations for sexually transmitted 

diseases are be offered to victims, as 

appropriate.

Tracking Require that 

investigative forms are 

completed according to 

facility policies, but do 

not include specific 

requirements for 

tracking sexual abuse 

or assault

Require facility administrators to maintain 

general and investigative files for 

allegations of sexual abuse that include 

information such as crime characteristics, a 

detailed reporting timeline, incident and 

investigative reports, medical forms, and 

supporting memos and videotapes.

Require that the SAAPI program 

coordinator undertake an annual review of 

aggregate data related to sexual abuse 

allegations and present the findings to the 

field office director and ICE Enforcement 

and Removal Operations (ERO) 

headquarters for use in determining 

changes to existing policies and practices 

to further the goal of eliminating sexual 

abuse.

Source: GAO analysis of ICE detention standards.

Note: ICE has developed another set of detention standards—the 2007 Family Residential 

Standards—for facilities that house families. As of August 2013, 1 of ICE’s 251 detention facilities 

housed families, and this facility housed less than 1 percent of the average detainee population from 

fiscal years 2010 through 2012. The 2007 Family Residential Standards are not included in this table 

because this table focuses on facilities that generally house adult immigration detainees.
Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations 

Compared with DHS Detention Standards and 

PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Page 69 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 established the National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission to study the impacts of prison rape in the 

United States and charged NPREC with recommending standards for 

addressing prison rape for consideration in developing standards required 

by PREA.1 In June 2009, NPREC issued a report with recommended 

standards, including specific recommendations for facilities that house 

immigration detainees.2 According to DHS, the department took NPREC’s 

recommendations for facilities that house immigration detainees into 

consideration along with input from other sources in its development of 

ICE’s 2011 PBNDS. In addition, DHS stated in the PREA notice of 

proposed rulemaking that NPREC’s recommendations for facilities that 

house immigration detainees are of particular interest to the department. 

Table 12 provides a summary of the NPREC recommended standards for 

immigration detention facilities compared with the standards in ICE’s 

2011 PBNDS and DHS’s PREA notice of proposed rulemaking, along 

with perspectives we obtained from former NPREC members and ICE 

officials on reasons for, and the significance of, any differences.

 1

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15606(a), (d)-(e), 15607(a)(1)-(2). PREA directed the Attorney General 

to adopt national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of 

prison rape and required that these standards be based on the independent judgment of 

the Attorney General, after giving due consideration to the NPREC recommended 

standards. In its final PREA rule, the Department of Justice determined that PREA 

encompasses any federal confinement facility, including immigration detention facilities, 

and that federal agencies, including DHS, would work with the Attorney General to issue 

rules or procedures that would satisfy the requirements of PREA, citing the section of 

PREA that required the Attorney General to give due consideration to NPREC’s 

recommendations, 42 U.S.C. § 15607(a)(2). See 77 Fed. Reg. at 37113.

2

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Report, June 2009.

Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations

Compared with DHS Detention Standards 

and PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations 

Compared with DHS Detention Standards and 

PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Page 70 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Table 12: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) Recommended Standards for Immigration Detention 

Facilities Compared with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards 

(PBNDS) and DHS Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

NPREC recommended standard 2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM

Related comments by former NPREC 

Commissioners and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) officialsa

Agreements with outside public entities 

and community service providers—The 

agency maintains copies of agreements, or 

documentation showing attempts to enter 

into agreements, with one or more local or 

national organizations that provide legal 

advocacy and confidential emotional support 

services for immigrant victims of crime. 

Both require that facility 

administrators enter into or attempt 

to enter into agreements.

Neither specifically requires that 

agencies maintain documentation 

showing that they entered or 

attempted to enter into agreements.

NPREC—An agency should maintain 

documentation as a matter of good business 

practice. Facilities should maintain this 

documentation as evidence to present to PREA 

auditors.

ICE—Facility managers are compelled to 

maintain documentation of attempts to enter into 

agreements because while the 2011 PBNDS do 

not specifically require this documentation, 

inspectors are to review this documentation in 

conducting facility inspections. 

Employee training and specialized 

training of investigators and medical and 

mental health care—Provides for special 

additional training to employees, including 

medical and mental health practitioners and 

investigators on the following topics: (1) 

cultural sensitivity toward diverse 

understandings of acceptable and 

unacceptable sexual behavior, (2) 

appropriate terms and concepts for 

discussing sex and sexual abuse with a 

culturally diverse population, (3) sensitivity 

and awareness regarding past trauma that 

may have been experienced by immigration 

detainees, and (4) knowledge of all existing 

resources for immigration detainees both 

inside and outside the facility that provide 

treatment and counseling for trauma and 

legal advocacy for victims.

The NPRM requires specialized staff 

training on coordination and health 

care issues, and on communicating 

effectively with detainees. The 2011 

PBNDS also require training for staff 

on “cultural and language issues.”

Neither explicitly requires training 

focused on the four topics 

enumerated in the NPREC 

recommended standard.

NPREC—Emphasized importance for DHS to 

require training on the specific topics NPREC 

recommended because individuals with a 

background in corrections do not inherently 

possess this knowledge and detainees will not 

find facility efforts to prevent sexual abuse 

credible if sexual abuse and assault prevention 

and intervention (SAAPI) information is not 

provided in a manner that is respectful of their 

cultural norms.

ICE—Agreed with NPREC standard; however, 

many of the state and local jails housing ICE 

detainees do not have the resources to provide 

this specialized training, especially given that 

most house very small populations of ICE 

detainees (to which such cultural issues would 

be applicable). ICE could explore the possibility 

of assisting facilities with this type of training in 

the future, depending on its own resources.

Inmate (detainee) education—Sexual 

abuse education for immigration detainees is 

provided at a time and in a manner that is 

separate from information provided about 

their immigration cases, in detainees’ own 

languages and in terms that are culturally 

appropriate, and is conducted by a qualified 

individual with experience communicating 

about these issues with a diverse population.

Both require that facilities provide 

information to ICE detainees in a 

language or format that they 

understand.

Neither explicitly requires that 

education be provided to detainees 

separately from information about 

their immigration cases, in terms 

that are culturally appropriate, or by 

a qualified individual with experience 

communicating about these issues 

with a diverse population.

NPREC—Incorporation of all elements is 

important.

ICE—ICE policies require that facilities make 

SAAPI-related information available to detainees 

on an ongoing basis that provides detainees with 

the opportunity to learn about SAAPI issues 

separately from their immigration case. 

Reiterated that many of the state and local jails 

housing ICE detainees do not have the 

resources to provide specialized training to staff 

beyond the training already required by the 

PBNDS, but that ICE could explore the possibility 

of assisting facilities with this type of training in 

the future, depending on resources. 
Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations 

Compared with DHS Detention Standards and 

PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Page 71 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

NPREC recommended standard 2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM

Related comments by former NPREC 

Commissioners and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) officialsa

Detainee Handbook—Every detainee is 

provided with an ICE Detainee Handbook

upon admission to the facility, and a 

replacement is provided whenever a 

detainee’s handbook is lost or damaged. The 

Detainee Handbook contains notice of the 

agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual 

abuse and contains all the agency’s policies 

related to sexual abuse, including 

information about how to report an incident 

of sexual abuse and detainees’ rights and 

responsibilities related to sexual abuse. The 

Detainee Handbook will inform immigration 

detainees how to contact organizations in the 

community that provide sexual abuse 

counseling and legal advocacy for detainee 

victims of sexual abuse. The Detainee

Handbook will also inform detainees how to 

contact the DHS Office for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties, DHS Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG), and diplomatic or consular 

personnel.

Both require that the handbook be 

made available to all detainees, and 

that detainees be notified about the 

facility’s zero-tolerance policy and 

how to report allegations of abuse to 

ICE headquarters and the OIG.

Neither explicitly requires that a 

replacement handbook be provided 

whenever a detainee’s handbook is 

lost or damaged, or that the 

handbook include information on 

how to contact community 

organizations, DHS Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties, or 

diplomatic or consular personnel. 

NPREC—The handbook should include the 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties’ phone 

number because the Office for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties’ mandate focuses on investigating 

cases, whereas the OIG’s mission focuses on 

ensuring the integrity of DHS functions.

ICE —Although no written ICE policy explicitly 

requires the provision of replacement handbooks 

to detainees, ICE does so in practice, and the 

handbook’s introduction advises detainees that 

they may request a replacement as necessary. 

In addition, contact information for the Office for 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, community 

organizations, and diplomatic and consular 

personnel is provided to detainees through other 

means (e.g., postings in detainee housing 

areas). 

b

Screening for risk of victimization and 

abusiveness—The facility makes every 

reasonable effort to obtain institutional and 

criminal records of immigration detainees in 

its custody prior to screening for risk of 

victimization and abusiveness. Screening of 

immigration detainees is conducted by 

employees who are culturally competent.

Both include provisions related to 

obtaining detainee criminal histories. 

As discussed above, training 

requirements do not include the 

NPREC-recommended topics 

related to cultural competence, but 

the 2011 PBNDS require that 

employee training address “cultural 

and language issues.”

NPREC—Reiterated the importance of providing 

training to facility staff to ensure that they are 

culturally competent.

ICE—As discussed above, many state and local 

jails do not have the resources to provide this 

specialized training, but ICE could explore 

assisting facilities with this type of training in the 

future, depending on resources. 

Use of screening information—Any facility 

that houses both inmates and immigration 

detainees houses all immigration detainees 

separately from other inmates in the facility 

and provides heightened protection for 

immigration detainees who are identified as 

particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by 

other detainees through the screening 

process. To the extent possible, immigration 

detainees have full access to programs, 

education, and work opportunities.

Both require that facilities provide 

heightened protection for detainees 

who are identified as particularly 

vulnerable to sexual abuse, and that 

facilities allow detainees who are 

identified as particularly vulnerable 

to sexual abuse to have the least 

restrictive housing possible.

Neither requires that facilities house 

all immigration detainees separately 

from other inmates in the facility.

NPREC—Reiterated that housing detainees 

separately from other inmates is of paramount 

importance because comingling denies 

detainees their civil status and subjects them to 

rules that are appropriate for convicted criminals 

but not for civil detainees.

ICE—ICE works to ensure the safety of 

detainees by housing them separately from 

detainees and inmates of higher threat levels. It 

is infeasible for state and local facilities to house 

detainees separately by classification level and 

apart from inmates because of resource 

constraints. ICE is working to consolidate the 

detainee population into fewer facilities that 

house solely ICE detainees, which reduces the 

frequency with which detainees are housed 

together with inmates.
Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations 

Compared with DHS Detention Standards and 

PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Page 72 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

NPREC recommended standard 2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM

Related comments by former NPREC 

Commissioners and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) officialsa

Inmate (detainee) reporting—The agency

provides immigration detainees with access 

to telephones with free, preprogrammed 

numbers to the DHS Office for Civil Rights 

and Civil Liberties and the DHS OIG. In 

addition, the agency must provide 

immigration detainees with a list of phone 

numbers for diplomatic or consular personnel 

from their countries of citizenship and access 

to telephones to contact such personnel.

Both require facilities to provide 

information on how to contact the 

DHS OIG and consular officials. In 

addition, the 2011 PBNDS require

that facilities provide detainees with 

free telephone access to these 

parties.

Neither requires facilities to provide 

detainees with free telephone 

access to the Office for Civil Rights 

and Civil Liberties.

NPREC—Detainee access to the Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties is important because 

the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties’

mandate focuses on investigating cases, 

whereas the OIG’s mission focuses on ensuring 

the integrity of DHS functions.

ICE—The Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties has indicated that it may not have the 

capacity to support the increased call volume 

that would result from free access to its number, 

given its limited staffing resources.

Inmate (detainee) access to outside 

confidential support services—All 

immigration detainees have access to 

outside victim advocates who have 

experience working with immigration 

detainees or immigrant victims of crime for 

emotional support services related to sexual 

abuse. The facility provides such access by 

giving immigration detainees the current 

mailing addresses and telephone numbers, 

including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, 

state, and national organizations that provide 

these services and enabling reasonable 

communication between immigration 

detainees and these organizations. The 

facility ensures that communications with 

such advocates is private, confidential, and 

privileged to the extent allowable by federal, 

state, and local law. The facility informs 

immigration detainees, prior to giving them 

access, of the extent to which such 

communications will be private, confidential, 

and privileged.

The NPRM requires that facilities 

provide detainees with access to 

support services and enable 

reasonable communication between 

detainees and service providers, in 

as confidential a manner as 

possible.

The 2011 PBNDS require facilities 

to provide detainees with access to 

outside services by giving detainees 

the names of local organizations 

that can assist detainee victims.

Neither requires that victims be 

informed of the extent to which their 

communications with the service 

providers will be private, 

confidential, and privileged.

NPREC—It is critical that detainees have the 

option to report abuse confidentially, and ICE 

cannot assume that detainees will know which of 

their communications are confidential; ICE must 

apprise them of this.

ICE—Reiterated that the NPRM contains 

language requiring that facilities enable 

reasonable communication between detainees 

and support organizations in as confidential a 

manner as possible, but did not comment on 

informing victims of the confidentiality of their 

communications or that the communications are 

confidential to the extent allowable by law versus 

as confidential as possible. 
Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations 

Compared with DHS Detention Standards and 

PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Page 73 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

NPREC recommended standard 2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM

Related comments by former NPREC 

Commissioners and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) officialsa

Protection of detainee victims and 

witnesses—ICE never removes from the 

country or transfers to another facility 

immigration detainees who report sexual 

abuse before the investigation of that abuse 

is completed, except at the detainee victim’s 

request. ICE considers releasing detainees 

who are victims of, or witnesses to, abuse; 

and monitoring them in the community to 

protect them from retaliation or further abuse 

during the course of the investigation.

Neither includes these 

requirements.

NPREC—Permitting the transfer of detainees 

enables retaliation against detainees who report 

abuse, interrupts investigation processes, and 

makes cases less likely to come to fruition. The 

threat of removal or transfer is very powerful.

ICE—It is not appropriate to include these 

requirements in the PBNDS 2011 because 

detention standards apply only to detention 

facilities; however, it is ICE, not the detention 

facilities, that holds the authority to transfer and 

remove detainees. However, ICE Directive 

11062.1—Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention 

and Intervention—directs the ICE Office of

Professional Responsibility to coordinate with 

appropriate entities to facilitate necessary 

immigration processes that ensure availability of 

victims, witnesses, and perpetrators for 

investigative interviews and administrative or 

criminal procedures. It also directs field office 

directors to consider potential alternative 

custodial options (such as release) for detainee 

victims.

Data collection—The facility collects 

additional data whenever an immigration 

detainee is the victim or perpetrator of an 

incident of sexual abuse in custody. The 

additional incident-based data collected 

indicate whether the victim or perpetrator 

was an immigration detainee, his or her 

status at the initiation of the investigation, 

and his or her status at the conclusion of the 

investigation.

Both require facilities to maintain 

records when a sexual assault 

occurs that identify the perpetrator, 

among other things. The 2011 

PBNDS also require that the records 

identify the victim.

Neither specifically requires that the 

records identify whether the 

perpetrator was an immigration 

detainee, his or her status at the 

initiation of the investigation, and his 

or her status at the conclusion of the 

investigation.

NPREC—DHS should consider developing a 

more robust framework for collecting, analyzing, 

and using these data similar to the surveys 

performed by the Department of Justice Bureau 

of Justice Statistics. It is crucial for effective 

record keeping and appropriate administrative 

response to incidents that the status of the 

perpetrator be designated (e.g., staff, visitor, 

immigration detainee).

ICE—The information suggested in the NPREC 

recommendation is generally expected to be 

contained in investigative files based on the 

requirements in the 2011 PBNDS.
Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations 

Compared with DHS Detention Standards and 

PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Page 74 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

NPREC recommended standard 2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM

Related comments by former NPREC 

Commissioners and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) officialsa

Recommended standards for family 

facilities—These consist of four standards 

that address screening of immigration 

detainees, reporting of sexual abuse, 

investigations, and access to medical and 

mental health care in family facilities. For 

example, they recommend that family 

facilities develop screening criteria to identify 

those families and family members who may 

be at risk of being sexually victimized that 

will not lead to the separation of families; that 

parents are questioned confidentially by 

investigators about any incident of sexual 

abuse, away from their children; and that all 

family members are offered mental health 

counseling when one family member is a 

victim of sexual abuse in the facility.

The 2007 Family Residential 

Standards govern ICE family 

facilities.

Both these standards and the 

NPRM require the use of screening 

criteria for identifying those likely to 

be sexual aggressors or sexual 

victims and that facilities offer 

victims of sexual abuse mental 

health care.

Neither identifies as a priority 

ensuring that their application does 

not lead to the separation of 

families. In addition neither specifies 

that facilities offer family members of 

victims of sexual abuse mental 

health care. 

NPREC—Reiterated the importance of including 

all four of the standards the commission 

recommended for family facilities. Sexual 

victimization of a family member in a detention 

facility involves shared trauma, as family 

members must cope with the consequences. 

Treatment should be made available to all family 

members directly affected by the victimization. 

Family separation can be destructive and very 

costly. It can also increase detainees’

vulnerability to sexual victimization.

ICE—These standards have been implemented 

in practice at ICE’s residential facility. For 

example, all residents at family facilities have 

access to mental health care at any time, so all 

facility members could receive counseling if one 

member is a victim of sexual abuse. The purpose 

of the family facility is to retain family unity, and 

the purpose of the screening process is to 

remove any detainees that would not be 

appropriately housed at a family facility, such as 

sexual abuse perpetrators. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and NPREC documents and testimony.

Notes: NPREC also recommended that all immigration detainees be counseled about the immigration 

consequences of a positive Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) test at the time they are offered 

HIV testing. NPREC explained that at the time it drafted the recommended standards, immigrants 

seeking legal status in the United States who were known to be HIV-positive had to seek a waiver 

from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to do so, as all people with communicable 

diseases of public health significance were required to do. Because of the potential consequences of 

a positive test for an immigration detainee, NPREC opined that it was important that detainees make 

an informed decision about whether to be tested or not. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services published a final rule removing HIV from the list of communicable diseases of public 

health significance for purposes of removability and inadmissibility (see 42 C.F.R. pt. 34). As a result, 

this recommended standard is no longer relevant.

a

The views presented in this column are based on interview testimony provided by seven of eight 

former NPREC commissioners. The other commissioner was not available for comment. We refer to 

the former NPREC commissioners we interviewed as NPREC for the purpose of brevity in this 

column, but the former commissioners noted that NPREC no longer exists and that they were not 

speaking on behalf of the commission.

b

The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties’ mission is to support DHS’s mission to secure the 

nation while preserving individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the law. The Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties works to integrate civil rights and civil liberties into all of DHS’s activities by, 

among other things, investigating and resolving civil rights and civil liberties complaints filed by the 

public regarding department policies or activities, or actions taken by department personnel. The 

OIG’s mission is to conduct independent and objective inspections, audits, and investigations to 

provide oversight and promote excellence, integrity, and accountability in DHS programs and 

operations.
Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations 

Compared with DHS Detention Standards and 

PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Page 75 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

National advocacy organizations we spoke with generally agreed in 

comments they submitted on DHS’s PREA notice of proposed rulemaking

that the notice of proposed rulemaking includes components that could 

strengthen SAAPI provisions in DHS’s detention facilities, but identified 

aspects of the proposed rule that they view as weaknesses. For example, 

three of the four national advocacy organizations we spoke with agreed 

that the standards included in DHS’s notice of proposed rulemaking, if 

fully implemented, would significantly increase the safety of DHS 

detainees, but that the standards could benefit from inclusion of additional 

requirements, such as that forensic medical exams be provided by a 

Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner (SAFE) or a Sexual Assault Nurse 

Examiner (SANE).3

 3

SAFEs are health care providers (e.g., physicians, physician assistants, nurses, nurse 

practitioners, or midwifes) who are specially educated and clinically prepared to perform 

sexual assault medical forensic exams. SANEs are registered nurses and advanced 

practice nurses who receive specialized education and fulfill clinical requirements to 

perform sexual assault medical forensic exams.

These organizations also raised concern that DHS’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking would not ensure timely implementation of 

the standards included in the rule. As DHS’s PREA rule is in proposed 

form and subject to change based on public comments received by the 

department, it is too early to assess the extent to which the final rule may 

address these issues.
Appendix VI: DHS PREA Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Compared with DOJ PREA Rule

Page 76 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

DHS’s PREA notice of proposed rulemaking adopts the overall structure 

of DOJ’s PREA rule and exact language from various DOJ standards; 

however, there are certain differences between the rules’ standards, 

examples of which are presented in table 13.

Table 13: Selected Differences between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for 

Implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) Rule and Department of Justice (DOJ) Final PREA Rule

Category DHS NPRM DOJ final rule

Definition of 

“sexual abuse”

Includes attempted abuse committed by detainees 

and staff

Includes attempted abuse committed by staff but not 

by inmates

Prevention planning: 

cross-gender viewing 

and searches

Prohibits cross-gender pat-down searches of female 

detainees absent exigent circumstances and 

prohibits such searches of male detainees unless, 

after reasonable diligence, staff of the same gender 

are not available at the time the pat-down search is 

required or in exigent circumstances

Prohibits cross-gender pat-down searches of female 

inmates, absent exigent circumstances, and does 

not address such searches of male inmates; phases 

in this requirement over 3 to 5 years, depending on 

the rated capacity of the facility

Responsive planning: 

forensic medical 

examinations

Requires forensic medical examinations to be 

performed by qualified health care personnel, but 

does not specify that they be by Sexual Assault 

Forensic Examiners (SAFE) or Sexual Assault Nurse 

Examiners (SANE)

Requires forensic medical examinations to be 

performed by SAFEs or SANEs where possible, and 

if SAFEs or SANEs cannot be made available, by 

other qualified medical practitioners; efforts to 

provide SAFEs or SANEs are to be documented

Training and education: 

staff training

Differs from DOJ rule on substance of training on 

sexual abuse, and includes definitions and examples 

of prohibited and illegal sexual behavior; recognition 

of situations where sexual abuse may occur; 

recognition of physical, behavioral, and emotional 

signs of sexual abuse, and methods of preventing 

and responding to such occurrences; and how to 

avoid inappropriate relationships with detainees

Differs from DHS NPRM on substance of training on 

sexual abuse, and includes the dynamics of sexual 

abuse and sexual harassment in confinement, the 

common reaction of sexual abuse and sexual 

harassment victims, how to detect and respond to 

signs of threatened and actual sexual abuse, and 

how to avoid inappropriate relationships with inmates

Source: GAO analysis of DHS NPRM and DOJ final rule for implementing PREA.

Appendix VI: DHS PREA Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Compared with DOJ PREA Rule
Appendix VII: Enforcement and Removal 

Operations 2008 and 2011 Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Provisions Inspection Checklists

Page 77 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

ICE ERO inspected facilities according to two sets of detention 

standards—the 2008 PBNDS and the 2011 PBNDS—that include SAAPI 

provisions in fiscal years 2010 through 2013. ERO developed inspection 

checklist worksheets for each of these sets of standards that it uses to 

assess compliance during its annual inspections of immigration detention 

facilities. Table 14 compares the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS SAAPI standard 

inspection checklists.

Table 14: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) 2008 and 2011 

Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Inspection Checklists

2008 SAAPI provision components 2011 SAAPI provision components

PRIORITY: The facility has a SAAPI program that includes, at 

a minimum,

• measures to prevent sexual abuse and sexual assault;

• policy and procedures for required chain-of-command 

reporting to the highest facility official and the ICE field 

office director;

• measures for prompt and effective intervention to address 

the safety and treatment needs of detainee victims if an 

assault occurs; and

• investigation of incidents of sexual assault, and discipline 

of assailants.

PRIORITY: Each facility has written policy and procedures for a 

SAAPI program that includes, at a minimum,

a

• a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual abuse or assault;

• measures taken to prevent sexual abuse or assault, including the 

designation of specific staff members responsible for staff training 

and detainee education regarding issues pertaining to sexual 

assault;

• procedures for immediate reporting of any allegation of sexual 

abuse or assault through the facility’s chain-of-command 

procedure, and to ERO, including written documentation 

requirements;

• procedures for detainees to report allegations;

• measures taken for prompt and effective intervention to address 

the safety and medical/mental health treatment needs of detainee 

victims, and to preserve and collect evidence;

• procedures for referral of incidents to appropriate investigative 

agencies (including law enforcement agencies and ICE Office of 

Professional Responsibility), and coordination with such entities;

• disciplinary sanctions for staff, up to and including termination,

when staff have violated agency sexual abuse policies, and data 

collection and reporting. 

For service processing centers and contract detention 

facilities, the written policy and procedure has been approved 

by the field office director

Tracking statistics and reports are readily available for review 

by the inspectors.

PRIORITY: All staff are trained, during orientation and in 

annual refresher training, in the prevention and intervention 

areas required by the detention standard.

PRIORITY: Training on the facility’s SAAPI program is included in 

initial and annual refresher training for employees, volunteers, and 

contract personnel, and addresses all training topics required by the 

detention standard. The facility maintains written documentation 

verifying employee, volunteer, and contractor training.

b

PRIORITY: Detainees are informed about the program in 

facility orientation and the Detainee Handbook (or equivalent).

PRIORITY: Detainees are informed about the facility’s SAAPI program 

and zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse and assault through the 

orientation program and the Detainee Handbook. Detainee 

notification, orientation, and instruction must be in a language or 

manner that the detainee understands

Detainees are provided the option to report any incident of sexual 

abuse or assault to any staff member, including a designated staff 

member other than an immediate point-of-contact line officer (e.g., the 

program coordinator or a mental health specialist)

Appendix VII: Enforcement and Removal 

Operations 2008 and 2011 Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Provisions Inspection Checklists
Appendix VII: Enforcement and Removal 

Operations 2008 and 2011 Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Provisions Inspection Checklists

Page 78 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

2008 SAAPI provision components 2011 SAAPI provision components

The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice is posted on all housing 

unit bulletin boards.

The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice, along with the names of the 

program coordinator and local organizations that can assist detainees 

who have been victims of sexual assault, is posted on all housing unit 

bulletin boards. The “Sexual Assault Awareness Information” brochure 

is distributed to detainees.

c

For service processing centers and contract detention 

facilities, the Sexual Assault Awareness Information brochure 

is available for detainees. 

d

PRIORITY: Detainees are screened upon arrival for high-risk 

sexual assaultive and sexual victimization potential and 

housed and counseled accordingly.

Detainees who are likely to become victims will be placed in 

the least restrictive housing that is available and appropriate.

PRIORITY: Detainees are screened upon arrival at the facility for 

potential vulnerabilities to sexually aggressive behavior or tendencies 

to act out with sexually aggressive behavior.

Detainees identified as being at risk for sexual victimization are 

monitored and counseled, and placed in the least restrictive housing 

that is available and appropriate. 

The facility administrator maintains or attempts to enter into 

memorandums of understanding or other agreements with community 

service providers or, if local providers are not available, with national 

organizations that provide legal advocacy and confidential emotional 

support services for immigrant victims of crime.

PRIORITY: When there is an alleged or proven sexual assault, 

the required notifications to ICE, facility management, and the 

appropriate law enforcement agency are promptly made.

PRIORITY: Staff members who become aware of an alleged assault 

immediately follow the reporting requirements set forth in the written 

policies and procedures.

When a detainee is alleged to be the perpetrator, the facility 

administrator ensures that the incident is promptly referred to the 

appropriate law enforcement agency having jurisdiction for 

investigation, and reported to the ERO field office director.

When an employee, contractor, or volunteer is alleged to be the 

perpetrator, the facility administrator ensures that the incident is 

promptly referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency having 

jurisdiction for investigation, and reported to the ERO field office 

director. The local government entity or contractor that owns or 

operates the facility is also notified.

PRIORITY: There is prompt and effective intervention when 

any detainee is sexually abused or assaulted, and there are 

policy and procedures for required chain-of-command 

reporting.

A detainee who is subjected to sexual abuse or assault is not returned 

to general population until proper reclassification, taking into 

consideration any increased vulnerability of the detainee as a result of 

the sexual abuse or assault, is completed.

PRIORITY: Any detainee who alleges that he/she has been sexually 

assaulted is offered immediate protection from the assailant and 

referred for a medical examination or clinical assessment for potential 

negative symptoms.

The facility uses a coordinated, multidisciplinary team approach to 

responding to sexual abuse, which includes a medical practitioner, a 

mental health practitioner, a security staff member, and an investigator 

from the assigned investigative entity, as well as representatives from 

outside entities that provide relevant services and expertise.

Care is taken to place a victimized detainee in a supportive 

environment that represents the least restrictive housing option 

possible (e.g., protective custody), but victims are not held for longer 

than 5 days in any type of administrative segregation except in highly 

unusual circumstances or at the request of the detainee.
Appendix VII: Enforcement and Removal 

Operations 2008 and 2011 Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Provisions Inspection Checklists

Page 79 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

2008 SAAPI provision components 2011 SAAPI provision components

PRIORITY: Staff suspected of perpetrating sexual abuse or assault 

are removed from all duties requiring detainee contact pending the 

outcome of an investigation.

When there is an alleged sexual assault, staff conduct a 

thorough investigation, gather and maintain evidence, and 

make referrals to appropriate law enforcement agencies for 

possible prosecution.

The facility ensures that all investigations into alleged sexual assault 

are prompt, thorough, objective, fair, and conducted by qualified 

investigators. Written procedures establish the coordination and 

sequencing of administrative and criminal investigations to ensure that 

the latter is not compromised by the former, including the process for 

conducting internal administrative investigations only after consultation 

with the assigned criminal investigative entity or after a criminal 

investigation has concluded. 

When possible and feasible, appropriate staff preserve the crime 

scene, and safeguard information and evidence in coordination with 

the referral agency and consistent with established evidencegathering and evidence-processing procedures.

Victims of sexual abuse or assault are referred to specialized 

community resources for treatment and gathering of evidence.

At no cost to the detainee, the facility administrator arranges for the 

victim to undergo a forensic medical examination by external 

independent and qualified health care personnel. The results of the 

physical examination and all collected physical evidence are provided 

to the investigative entity.

Victims are provided emergency medical and mental health services 

and ongoing care as appropriate, including testing for sexually 

transmitted diseases and infections, prophylactic treatment, 

emergency contraception, follow-up examinations for sexually 

transmitted diseases, and referrals for counseling (including crisis 

intervention counseling).

All records associated with claims of sexual abuse or assault 

are maintained, and such incidents are specifically logged and 

tracked by a designated staff coordinator.

PRIORITY: The facility administrator has designated a SAAPI 

program coordinator for the facility

Information concerning the identity of a detainee victim reporting 

sexual assault, and the facts of the report itself, is limited to those who 

have a need to know in order to make decisions concerning the 

detainee victim’s welfare, and for law enforcement/investigative 

purposes.

The program coordinator reviews the results of every investigation of 

sexual abuse or assault to assess and improve prevention and 

response efforts.

The program coordinator conducts an annual review of aggregate 

data regarding sexual abuse or assault incidents at the facility, and 

presents the findings to the ERO field office director and ICE ERO 

headquarters for use in determining whether changes are needed to 

existing policies and practices to further the goal of eliminating sexual 

abuse.

All case records associated with claims of sexual abuse are 

maintained in a secure location, consistent with the confidentiality 

requirements of the detention standards on “Medical Care” and 

“Detention Files.”

Source: GAO analysis of ICE documents.

a

According to ODPP officials, in March 2013 an ICE working group—composed of representatives 

from ERO, ODPP, and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, among others—determined 
Appendix VII: Enforcement and Removal 

Operations 2008 and 2011 Sexual Abuse and 

Assault Provisions Inspection Checklists

Page 80 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

priority provisions within the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS. ICE considers these priority provisions to be of 

most critical importance within each detention standard based on significance to issues such as 

health and life safety, facility security, detainee rights, and quality of life in detention.

b

The SAAPI provisions in the 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards stipulate that 

training for employees, volunteers, and contract personnel should include recognition of situations 

where sexual abuse or assault may occur, and how to report knowledge or suspicion of sexual abuse 

or assault, among other things.

c

The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice contains contact information for reporting sexual abuse and 

assault to a facility staff member, ICE officials, ICE’s Community and Detainee Helpline, and ICE’s 

Joint Intake Center.

d

ICE’s Sexual Assault Awareness Information brochure contains information on sexual abuse and 

assault definitions, avoiding sexual assault, and what to do if assaulted, among other things.
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 81 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 82 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 83 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 84 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 85 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 86 GAO-14-38 Immigration Detention

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Lacinda Ayers, Assistant 

Director; David Alexander; Frances A. Cook; Juan Gobel; Allyson 

Goldstein; Eric Hauswirth; Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor; Olivia Lopez; Alicia 

Loucks; Taylor Matheson; Jessica Orr; and Gloria Proa made significant 

contributions to this report.

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441114)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.